Print Page | Close Window

who are Turks? The current people in Anatolia?

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: General History
Forum Name: Archaeology & Anthropology
Forum Discription: Topics on archaeology and anthropology
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1601
Printed Date: 06-Jul-2020 at 16:21
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: who are Turks? The current people in Anatolia?
Posted By: Guests
Subject: who are Turks? The current people in Anatolia?
Date Posted: 19-Dec-2004 at 10:48
Or, the nomadic people of central asia??? Can anyone tell me what is the ethnical structure of Turks? are they indo european, middle eastern, central asian or what? Do they look like their ancestors??? ( Well, I don't think so...)



Replies:
Posted By: azimuth
Date Posted: 19-Dec-2004 at 11:03

 

Central Asian

 

they do look like their ancestors 

 

( check out the singer Ben deniz  she is very Central Asian)

 

 

 



Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 19-Dec-2004 at 12:14
But shouldnt they look like other central asians (mongols)

-------------


Posted By: azimuth
Date Posted: 19-Dec-2004 at 12:48

 

i think the Mongols had wider eyes than the chines

like Catherine Zeta-Jones in Ocean 12  ( when she was sleeping)

 

 



Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 19-Dec-2004 at 19:28

Most Turks from Turkiye do look Central Asian.  Alot do look European though, probably because lots of Turks have mixed with  Greeks or Armenians.  I'm a Turk from Turkiye and I look very Central Asian, I have been mistaken for a Uygur and a Kazak many times.



-------------


Posted By: Christscrusader
Date Posted: 19-Dec-2004 at 22:03
Originally posted by Ender

Most Turks from Turkiye do look Central Asian. 

 

Get a clue. Most turks on the coast lines are converted Greeks and now are part of the Turkish mainstream. The Turkish basketball team doenst look central asian? ALL the important political figures have the European Medditteranian look, not the Central Asian look. If i am wrong, which in some cases I could be, all i no is all the turks i have seen do not have a Central Asian look.



-------------
Heaven helps those, who help themselves.
-Jc


Posted By: perdon
Date Posted: 20-Dec-2004 at 01:21
Originally posted by Ender

"I have been mistaken for a Uygur and a Kazak many times.

What are you talking about ? how can a kazak look like turkish ?weird ! kazak are mor mongolian looking !uyhgur's ancestor is oghus ,(Tiele ) ,the same with nowday turkish ,but later they moved to Xinkiang ,mixed with tochorien (indu european),could be similar ,I put some pics in uyghur image)! Uzbek is part of GOlden horde ,later mixed with persian .Tajik is dirctely decended from persian !

Kyrkiz is the same with Kazak ,at least I cannot tell the difference !

In most of sorces ,the conception of turk is refering to turkish and turkic ,

but now turk is sort of refering to turkish in Turkey !

Turkish is from seljuk turk ,they are from central asia,but that is the thing happened 1 thousand years ago!Imposible for turkish look like central asian ,maybe similiar with tajik ,uyhgur ,uzbek ,.but impossiale with kazka,kirkiz!

Turkish are more like Euoropean !



Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 20-Dec-2004 at 09:39

It is up to your definition to "Turk". Today, it is recognized as the citizens of Turkey, but in general term, it means all the inheritors of Göktürk Khanate which occupied lands between the eastern sea and northern baspian sea...

So it is a very hard thing to define "Turk". Because the Oguz Turks lived in the western terrattorries of the khanate and their western tribes (Üçok) werent mongolic. They were the builders of Seljuk Empire, Ottoman Empire and Turkey. The Eastern Oguz was "Bozok" and they are todays Turkmenistan's people. Azerbaijan Turks are Oguz mixed with Persians and Caucasians.

Todays "Turks" in Anatolia are mixed with native Anatolians in specific terrattorries. The Eastern Anatolian Turks are mixed with Persians, Armenians, Caucasians and Kurds. The Southeastern are mixed with Persians and Kurds. The Northern Anatolian Turks are mixed with Laz, Çerkez and Georgians. And the western and southwestern coasts of Turkey were the ancient lands of greeks so they are very mixed with greeks. Also in Istanbul, there lives lots of nations ( Jews, Greeks, Balkanians) from the Ottoman and Bzynthine periods, so they are mixed very much that today a tourist in Istanbul will possibly think that Turks have European ethnic roots!!!!!

But there are lots of non mixed Turks living in all regions of Turkey and they dont look like a European nor a Middle Eastern, nor a Medeterinnean. It is true that they aren't pulled eyed, because their ancestors weren't...

 



-------------


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 20-Dec-2004 at 09:48
Originally posted by Christscrusader

Originally posted by Ender

Most Turks from Turkiye do look Central Asian. 

 

Get a clue. Most turks on the coast lines are converted Greeks and now are part of the Turkish mainstream. The Turkish basketball team doenst look central asian? ALL the important political figures have the European Medditteranian look, not the Central Asian look. If i am wrong, which in some cases I could be, all i no is all the turks i have seen do not have a Central Asian look.

The main reason that the most political civilians of Turkey dont look like a non European, because these people have more opportunities in Turkish system ( since the Ottoman period !) and Anatolian real Turks were being pressed and used as human sources ( since the later Ottoman periods too!) and BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT NO REAL TURK HAVE RULED TURKS SINCE THE BEGINNING OF THE OTTOMAN PERIOD...



-------------


Posted By: Mustafa
Date Posted: 21-Dec-2004 at 02:00

Originally posted by Oguzoglu

But there are lots of non mixed Turks living in all regions of Turkey and they dont look like a European nor a Middle Eastern, nor a Medeterinnean. It is true that they aren't pulled eyed, because their ancestors weren't..

I am sorry but this is nonsense. Pretty much all Turks in Turkey are mixed. It is very rare to see anyone that resembles an asian person. The Kazaks and the Kyrgyz, and actually the Mongols, probably look the closest to the original Turks that swarmed out of ancient Mongolia. Just take one look at the ilustrations of the Seljuk leaders and you will see that they all looked fully asian. Look at *any* ancient illustrations of Turkic people, including the illustrations that people in Vienna made when the ottoman army was besieging them....the ottomans are portrayed as asian looking including their eyes and faces! The leaders were mixed, but it seems as if the general population and army was still very asian looking back then.

Turks in Turkey have to stop denying this fact and stop claiming that their ancestors were any different from the Mongols. Turkic ancestors were fully asian, there can be no doubt about it and there was and cannot have been much genetic difference between Turks and Mongols. Why are so many Turks in Turkey so afraid to find out that their ancestors were asian looking just like the mongols? 

There has been a lot of mixing going on in the Turkic world and the Turks in Turkey are probably the most mixed of the whole bunch and the most ignorant, too, when it comes to figuring out what their cultural ancestors looked like (of course there are many exceptions). For some reason most people in Turkey seem to think that their ancestors came to Asia Minor looking exactly like the mixed population of Turkey today....

Mustafa



Posted By: Mustafa
Date Posted: 21-Dec-2004 at 02:34

Here is a nice looking Kazak girl (from East Turkestan in China) and that's what all of the turkic ancestors looked like before the "great mixing." Beautiful!



Posted By: azimuth
Date Posted: 21-Dec-2004 at 04:34

she is beautifull i agree

but i've seen some pictures of the turkish in china and they have a wider eyes than this girl

but with the same type of nose.

 

 

 



Posted By: Chono
Date Posted: 21-Dec-2004 at 05:33
In ancient chinese documents turkic speakers have frequently been described as caucasian looking. Probably, turkic speaking people have been a mixture all along.


Posted By: demon
Date Posted: 21-Dec-2004 at 17:25

Well...all I know about Turkish girls are that they are generally hot.  And most I've met had no slanted eyes   A bit dark skinned, black haired, and some have blue eyes. 

According to what I've heard, they are supposed to be Altaic, meaning they have the same heritage as Mongols or something like that.



-------------
Grrr..


Posted By: Mustafa
Date Posted: 22-Dec-2004 at 23:48

Chono,

Most of the time they have NOT been described as any special looking people. Just barbarians from the north. If they had been different looking all along they would have been described as such. I am sure there were mixed tribes here and there, but then there were also a lot of mixed mongolian tribes here and there. And yes, those mongolians were also caucasian/asian mixes.

The point is that the original Turks and some still today were 100% asian. Otherwise, genetically it makes no sense:

Altaic Languages:

Mongols: 100% asian looking (today anyway)

Manchu: 100% asian looking

Koreans (which is also counted by some as an altaic language): 100% asian

Turks: ALL mixed people ALL along? I think that's horsecrap. There is plenty of historical proof that Turks were all asian looking at some point in time and that the asian looking Turks today are NOT just that way because they "mixed with Mongols" like some people ignorantly claim.

Mustafa

 

Originally posted by Chono

In ancient chinese documents turkic speakers have frequently been described as caucasian looking. Probably, turkic speaking people have been a mixture all along.



Posted By: Mustafa
Date Posted: 22-Dec-2004 at 23:50

I don't think you have *any* idea what I am talking about. I am not talking about girls from Turkey but Turkic people in general and their origins. Read the posts above carefully and you might figure it out.

Mustafa

 

Originally posted by demon

Well...all I know about Turkish girls are that they are generally hot.  And most I've met had no slanted eyes   A bit dark skinned, black haired, and some have blue eyes. 

According to what I've heard, they are supposed to be Altaic, meaning they have the same heritage as Mongols or something like that.



Posted By: Turk
Date Posted: 23-Dec-2004 at 16:05

Lol guys don't try to categorize Turks! We're gonna go in circles! If you want to talk Turkic however I think that is an easier subject to discuss.

Turkish is part of the Altai language family, which also includes Japanese and Mongolian. As for Mongols, they are like cousins...Turks and Mongols developed alongside one another however they were always seperate and distinct people. Mongol conquerors often utilized Turkish fighters, and much of the Mongol conquerors armies consisted mostly of Turks, which is why the Turkish culture and language spread West, and not Mongolian.

Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, and Kyrgyzstan speak dialects of Turkish, which can be learned very easily by one another (just minor differences, but all the sentence structure is the same, very easy to learn by any other Turkic person).

There are autonomous provinces in Russia and China which speak Turkic languages and are Turkic people (Muslims too!). For example, Tatarstan in Russia and Xinjiang in China.

As for Turkey Turks, we are very mixed but in the end we are Turks! We speak Turkish, not Greek or German or Armenian...And we have a very ancient history.. My own family originated from the Caucus (Chechnya, Abkhazia area), but for generations we have spoken Turkish and lived Turkish culture.

As for physical features, today's Turks can be blonde and blue eyed, and I HAVE met Turkey Turks with very heavy Asiatic features, but very very few. Although we do not resemble our ancestors, there is no denying where we are originally from, which is present day Xinjiang.

Turkic people have always looked different from Asians in general, in that even the eastern Turks were classified as Caucasian, or at least described as such by old records. Anyone can have slanted eyes, but its the facial features that people are classified by (like their nose, cheekbones, chin, etc). I know for an absolute fact that no Turkic people are or were Indo-European or Aryan. Turkic is a group of its own!

But remember guys, the way you look or what your ethnic composition is, has no effect on what culture you live, what language you speak, and what religion you believe.

And in short, we may not look like our ancestors, but our ancestor's culture and tongue never left us.



-------------


Posted By: Mustafa
Date Posted: 23-Dec-2004 at 20:39

Hello "Turk",

See below for comments.

Originally posted by Turk

Turks and Mongols developed alongside one another however they were always seperate and distinct people.

--Always? First of all...since they are from the same region and belong to the same language family, there is a very high probability that they WERE the same people. Every other claim without proof is just speculation and wishful thinking. There were mongolized turks and turkicized mongols...that does not happen so easily with people that don't consider themselves close to being the same people. They might have actually considered themselves different tribes of the same people.

Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, and Kyrgyzstan speak dialects of Turkish, which can be learned very easily by one another (just minor differences, but all the sentence structure is the same, very easy to learn by any other Turkic person).

--They are very similar and it is easier for Turkic people to learn each other's languages, but it is NOT "very easy" to learn Uzbek, for example, for a Turk from Turkey. There are quite a few grammatical differences in addition to many different words. Heck, it's even not all that easy for someone from Istanbul to learn the "real" Turkish that was spoken (and is still spoken) in Anatolia before that so calld "language reform" in Turkey. Istanbul Turkish and the "real" Turkey Turkish even have different grammar and words. Unfortunately, speakers of Anatolian turkish are looked down upon and anyone speaking it feels "uneducated" and tries to learn "standard turkish" to not be belittled. So that language is dying out too with the sanctioning of the government and society in general...sad story... 

There are autonomous provinces in Russia and China which speak Turkic languages and are Turkic people (Muslims too!).

--First of all they are not all muslim. Second, I dare you to go try to understand anything a Yakut person is saying or a Tuva!

As for physical features, today's Turks can be blonde and blue eyed

--Um...that's wishful thinking. When I was a kid in Kayseri (central Anatolia) I had only seen blondes on TV or in Istanbul. And the ones in Istanbul were ALL fake blondes.    It is extremely rare to see real blondes in Turkey and if you do, you can be sure that they are the product of the crusades or the tradition of the ottomans to recruit christian children for the janissary army...now think about that.

 

 there is no denying where we are originally from, which is present day Xinjiang.

--That's wrong. Turks are not from Xinjiang and the people in Xinjiang don't look anything like the "original" Turks. The people in Xinjiang are highly mixed, too. I don't know why people fail to see that the SILK ROAD was going RIGHT THROUGH Turkistan and there were different kinds of people going back and forth to Asia and the middle east. So it's no surprise that all that mixing went on.

The real home of the origina turks seems to have been in present day Mongolia. Check your facts.

Turkic people have always looked different from Asians in general, in that even the eastern Turks were classified as Caucasian

--This is just groundless nationalistic talk. How do you know they "always" looked caucasian? Were you there? Just because there were *some* reports about mixed people (including mixed Mongolians by the way) you are concluding that Turks *always* looked caucasian? That makes absolutely no sense. It's the whole "wishful thinking" syndrome again and some subconscious feeling that caucasian must be somehow superior to asian. Not an uncommon thought among Turks of today and a very unfortunate development actually.

Turkic is a group of its own!

--This is the "turanian supremest" in you speaking. This is total nonsense. Turks were NOT a genetic group of their own. They were just asian like anyone else in Mongolia and that region back then.

I hope this sad trend of denial and ignorance wanes some day.

Mustafa



Posted By: Turk
Date Posted: 23-Dec-2004 at 21:48

Originally posted by Mustafa

--Always? First of all...since they are from the same region and belong to the same language family, there is a very high probability that they WERE the same people. Every other claim without proof is just speculation and wishful thinking. There were mongolized turks and turkicized mongols...that does not happen so easily with people that don't consider themselves close to being the same people. They might have actually considered themselves different tribes of the same people.

Your point was made after the first sentence (you believe Turks and Mongols were the same people), next time do not proceed saturate your argument with useless statements.

--They are very similar and it is easier for Turkic people to learn each other's languages, but it is NOT "very easy" to learn Uzbek, for example, for a Turk from Turkey. There are quite a few grammatical differences in addition to many different words. Heck, it's even not all that easy for someone from Istanbul to learn the "real" Turkish that was spoken (and is still spoken) in Anatolia before that so calld "language reform" in Turkey. Istanbul Turkish and the "real" Turkey Turkish even have different grammar and words. Unfortunately, speakers of Anatolian turkish are looked down upon and anyone speaking it feels "uneducated" and tries to learn "standard turkish" to not be belittled. So that language is dying out too with the sanctioning of the government and society in general...sad story...

First of all, I will say that I do not like when a Turk cannot speak proper Istanbul Turkish. And different parts of Turkey may have different words but they certainly do not have different sentence structure. That's preposterous.

I have family in Kars so I also know Azeri, but I don't converse with it even with them. "Gidiyrsiz, gelersiz, gidek" etc...What makes you think this accent deserves the label of "real" Turkish as you call it?

--First of all they are not all muslim. Second, I dare you to go try to understand anything a Yakut person is saying or a Tuva!

Tatars and East Turkestanis are Muslim. Why do you make statements on things you nothing about? Are there any Tatar in your family even? Second, I did not mention anything about Yakut or Tuva people, who are Pagans. Third, I did not say all autonomous Turkic provinces throughout the world are Muslim. In fact, the Gaugazia Turkic people of Moldova have long been Christian!

--Um...that's wishful thinking. When I was a kid in Kayseri (central Anatolia) I had only seen blondes on TV or in Istanbul. And the ones in Istanbul were ALL fake blondes.    It is extremely rare to see real blondes in Turkey and if you do, you can be sure that they are the product of the crusades or the tradition of the ottomans to recruit christian children for the janissary army...now think about that.

Blondes in central Anatolia are indeed rare! However it is not uncommon whatsoever in Izmir or even Kars to see it. There are three blondes in my family, and a cousin with black hair and blue eyes. And I don't recall them being stolen from a Christian family. As for my "wishful thinking", I prefer girls with black hair.

--That's wrong. Turks are not from Xinjiang and the people in Xinjiang don't look anything like the "original" Turks. The people in Xinjiang are highly mixed, too. I don't know why people fail to see that the SILK ROAD was going RIGHT THROUGH Turkistan and there were different kinds of people going back and forth to Asia and the middle east. So it's no surprise that all that mixing went on.

The real home of the origina turks seems to have been in present day Mongolia. Check your facts.

Will you stop rambling? You mention absolutely nothing about Mongolia in your argument, yet you end with the statement "the real home of original turks seems to have been in present day Mongolia", then you tell me to check my facts?

--This is just groundless nationalistic talk. How do you know they "always" looked caucasian? Were you there? Just because there were *some* reports about mixed people (including mixed Mongolians by the way) you are concluding that Turks *always* looked caucasian? That makes absolutely no sense. It's the whole "wishful thinking" syndrome again and some subconscious feeling that caucasian must be somehow superior to asian. Not an uncommon thought among Turks of today and a very unfortunate development actually.

I didn't say Turks always looked Caucasian, I said they always looked different. And if you think I'm biased against Asians (which is absolute nonsense), just keep in mind that my family is from the Caucus . Just kidding, but anyhow, there is no traditional culture I admire more than the Chinese and Japanese. And I'm definitely not a nationalist.

--This is the "turanian supremest" in you speaking. This is total nonsense. Turks were NOT a genetic group of their own. They were just asian like anyone else in Mongolia and that region back then.

And this is the "AzN pride" in your speaking. Asia is a big place buddy!!!!!!!!!

I hope this sad trend of denial and ignorance wanes some day.

Mustafa

And thank you for you argument. Or lack thereof.



-------------


Posted By: Mustafa
Date Posted: 24-Dec-2004 at 22:50

You know, it's really hard to convince someone by using logic, facts and logical reasoning who is set in his ways.  I will give it one more try...

Originally posted by Turk

Originally posted by Mustafa

--Always? First of all...since they are from the same region and belong to the same language family, there is a very high probability that they WERE the same people. Every other claim without proof is just speculation and wishful thinking. There were mongolized turks and turkicized mongols...that does not happen so easily with people that don't consider themselves close to being the same people. They might have actually considered themselves different tribes of the same people.

Your point was made after the first sentence (you believe Turks and Mongols were the same people), next time do not proceed saturate your argument with useless statements.

--I suggest you read my comments above again. It only seems "useless" to you because you have no idea what I am talking about. It is customary in a civilized society to back up arguments with reasoning explaining the same. Maybe you are not used to this kind of thought process...

First of all, I will say that I do not like when a Turk cannot speak proper Istanbul Turkish.

--Again, you conveniently skipped over half of what I said above. Again, I have a feeling you don't understand a thing I am saying. It does not matter if *you* like it or not when a Turk cannot speak "proper Istanbul Turkish." The need for a common language is obvious, but trying to belittle and extirpate everything else but the Istanbul dialect is just ridiculous. Yes, I speak standard Turkish just fine, but I actually PREFER the Turkish once spoken in Kayseri. It actually makes it MUCH easier for me to learn other Turkic languages, believe it or not. Of course people like you call speakers of regional Oguz dialects of Turkish in Turkey either "illeterate" or "peasants" or claim that they "can't even speak Turkish properly" as if Istanbul Turkish has a god-given claim to being "the only Turkish" dialect spoken in Turkey. Common language, yes, but trying to deny that there are other Oguz dialiects spoken in Turkey is just plain ignorant.

 And different parts of Turkey may have different words but they certainly do not have different sentence structure. That's preposterous.

--Oh really? Apperantly you have no clue about Anadolu Turkish to claim that. Or maybe you just think the different grammar is just "wrong" Turkish spoken by "naive" and ignorant peasants who don't even know how to speak "Turkish" properly, right? Let me give you a little lesson in *one* version of Anadolu Turkish (the Kayseri version...but quite common elsewhere too):

"Ben gidiyom" "Sen gidiyong" "o gidiyo" "biz gidiyok" "siz gidiyonguz" "onnar gidiyo(llar)"

Question: "Siz onnarnang gidiyonguzmu?" etc...etc...etc.

Suggestion: "Hading, carsiya gidek!"

Also: There is no such thing as "evet or hayir" to express "yes" and "No" in Anadolu Turkish. We just use the more or less standark Turkic words "He"  and "Yok." I have no idea anyway where "evet" and "hayir" came from...no other Turkic people use those words including (originally) most of Turkey outside Istanbul.

There are many other examples I could give. Are you saying this is just "badly spoken" standard Turkey Turkish? If this is not different grammar from standard Turkey Turkish, then what is it? Oh...I see...it's the language of the "cahil" and uneducated who just don't know any better (the typical comment speakers of this dialect get in Turkey). Funny that I am both educated *and* know better (better than you anyway...haha) and still prefer to speak that language.

I have family in Kars so I also know Azeri,

--Good for you!    Then your horizon is maybe not as narrow as you make it seem...

but I don't converse with it even with them. "Gidiyrsiz, gelersiz, gidek" etc...

--See? There is the belittling again. What's wrong with "Gelersiz, gidek, etc?". Let them speak that language without belittling them in addition to a standard Turkish. By the way, the Azeri dialect of Oghuz Turkish had a HUGE influence on Anadolu Turkish...another reason Istanbul Turkish was chosen as the "standard" in Turkey...according to the motto: "Let's just force a minority dialect on a population whose Turkish is hugely influenced by the Azeri dialect (and other Turkic dialects) and make sure that we belittle them afterwords every time they try to speak their own language."

What makes you think this accent deserves the label of "real" Turkish as you call it?

--So you are calling Azeri an ACCENT? Accent of what? Just to clarify things for you so you are not in the dark for too much longer: Azeri is a Oguz DIALECT!! Not an accent. Just like Istanbul Turkish is an Oguz dialect. Get it?

Why do you make statements on things you nothing about?

--As you have already sufficiently proven, you are the source of knowledge for the turkic world.   Or was that source of misinformation?  I think the latter is a more fitting description. For you own good...go do some real research. Read some books that some people recommended here, read some scholarly articles...educate youself. Education is a good thing.

 

Are there any Tatar in your family even?

--And how does that fact matter? Does having a Tatar in my family automatically make me an authority on Tatars? Which Tatars? If you actually had done some research you would realize that tons of different people (including Mongols) were called "Tatars" at one point or another in history...

 Second, I did not mention anything about Yakut or Tuva people, who are Pagans.

--Pagans, huh? Besides being wrong, this is REALLY a nice thing to say about people huh? I assume you are trying to say the equivalent of "Gavur." According to you everyone but muslims are "gavur", right? Have you ever thought about opening up your mind a little bit?   Again...go do some research to (maybe) figure out what their real religion is.

Third, I did not say all autonomous Turkic provinces throughout the world are Muslim. In fact, the Gaugazia Turkic people of Moldova have long been Christian!

--Since you so conveniently seem to forget what you said, let me remind you. You babbled earlier: "There are autonomous provinces in Russia and China which speak Turkic languages and are Turkic people (Muslims too!)" 

Last time I checked the Yakuts and Tuva were also living in Russia? No? Maybe they now live in South America or Austrlia...it's been a while since I checked. It's really fun pointing out your nonsense by the way....

Blondes in central Anatolia are indeed rare! However it is not uncommon whatsoever in Izmir or even Kars to see it.

--Izmir: blondes are most likely product of the crusades and janissaries. Kars: blondes (and red haired people) are the same or smiliar genotype/phenotype as the people in the Caucasus right across the border who have no Turkic roots.

Having said that...in modern times people move around quite a bit and "spread their seeds" so it's hard to say where these blondes and red haired people originally came from. In any case, the point is that they did NOT originally come from central asia and they were NOT the original turks. Since you always seem to miss the point, I thought I'd remind you of that one more time.

There are three blondes in my family, and a cousin with black hair and blue eyes.

--Good for you!  And how does that prove that the original Turks were blonde and blue eyed? Wait...I got it...YOU and your family are the original Turks!! Wow...were have you guys been so long?  Ok...joking aside...your statement above does not contribute anything to the discussion. My point was that the ORIGINAL turks were not blonde and if they had been you would see a lot more blonde people in ALL of Turkestan, ESPECIALLY in places such as Mongolia, Kirgiztan, Kasachstan etc.  Funny how they all look asian.

And I don't recall them being stolen from a Christian family.

--You would not recall that, unless you are several hundred years old.  

Will you stop rambling? You mention absolutely nothing about Mongolia in your argument, yet you end with the statement "the real home of original turks seems to have been in present day Mongolia", then you tell me to check my facts?

--I realize that you are having great difficulty understanding even a fraction of what I am saying, but please try to at least have the courtesy to address what you call "rambling" instead of trying to brush aside your nonsense statements such as "we are from xinjiang."

I didn't say Turks always looked Caucasian, I said they always looked different.

--Oh really? Let me remind you again (this is getting boringly annoying): You said: "Turkic people have always looked different from Asians in general, in that even the eastern Turks were classified as Caucasian, or at least described as such by old records. "

I even pointed out the relevant part of your (nonsense) sentence above to refresh your seemingly very strained memory.

And I'm definitely not a nationalist.

--If you are not, then why do you speak like every other absolutely clueless Turkish Nationalist I have met, who just know "facts" from hearsay and regurgitate those (nonsense) "facts" ad nauseum without even checking the real facts ONCE?

And this is the "AzN pride" in your speaking. Asia is a big place buddy!!!!!!!!!

--Buddy? We're friends now? That was fast..  I am not biased either way, I just don't like it when pure nonsense is being spread although the actual facts are all out there for everyone to see (and research).

And thank you for you argument. Or lack thereof.

--No problem. Anytime you need some solid, real information...seek me out!  I am always here for my "Turkish Brothers" to clarify their confusion.

Mustafa



Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 25-Dec-2004 at 14:11

I think the reason for Turks not looking central asian is because they were a mixed nation of caucases and asian nations from the begining. The huns were also a union of asian nations and they were the ancestors of Turks. But I know that today the people of Turkic republics look like each other and their are similar. But the eastern Turks are more central asian than others. The Azerbaijanis and Turkmens look very similar to Turkey Turks. The more eastern republics ( Uzbekistan, Kyrgizistan) are totally central asian.

 



-------------


Posted By: Turk
Date Posted: 26-Dec-2004 at 08:55
Originally posted by maximilian

I think the reason for Turks not looking central asian is because they were a mixed nation of caucases and asian nations from the begining. The huns were also a union of asian nations and they were the ancestors of Turks. But I know that today the people of Turkic republics look like each other and their are similar. But the eastern Turks are more central asian than others. The Azerbaijanis and Turkmens look very similar to Turkey Turks. The more eastern republics ( Uzbekistan, Kyrgizistan) are totally central asian.

 

You're right about Turks being mixed, however I have my doubts about Azeris even being part of the Turkic nation.



-------------


Posted By: perdon
Date Posted: 28-Dec-2004 at 04:36

God ! I don't know if you people know about central asia ,I am wondering if you people have ever been there before ,but I know you all are bull sh*ting ( sorry to be rude ) ,when are you people going to tell  the difference between different turks and turkish?

Simply ,central asian don't look like each other ! the conculution above is wrong ! however ,kazak and Kyrgiz are very similiar ,not only the physical features but also language and culture ,they look very like mongolian ,and the pic of kazak in china is the evidence (but some  kazzak in kazakistan look a little different from them ,I guess some of them mixed with russian ,in kazakstan  russian consists of 40 percent of the population ),they keep the most original features of turks,that means turks from the begining shoud be very like mongolian ,but it is very strange that ,from the book Osprey's Attila and the Nomad Hordes ,there is a pic of uyhgur ,they look more like caucasian to me

and this summer I visited the Xinkiang uyghur region of china ,I took a picture of an morden uyghur girl ,

she never looks like mongolian ,i don't know why.

well,uyhgur looks different from place to place though ,they mixed with Tochorian (indo eauropean) largely ,and their ancestor is oghus ,which is also the ancestor of nowdays turkish .well ,so much about the most eastern turks,well some people say turks in china look very like mongolian ,I think they are refering to Kazak and Kyrgiz in china (in china there are 1 million kazaks in Xikiang ),although there are also uyghur looking like mongolian ,but as a whole ,it is safe to say they look more like caucasian !

uzbek ,my nation is from golden horde ,but largely mixed with persian and look more like persian ,about 30 % of  our language is introduced from persian(maybe more ,i heard that 50% ,i AM NOT SURE ,) their archtecture is very usualy ,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

well ,for the peoplePresident

and intresetingly ,look at the pics of uyghur dancer in China

they look like each other ,languange is almost the same ,it is very funny !

for tajik

http://www.cac-biodiversity.org/images/tjk/tjk_2004_5.jpg, visit - www.cac-biodiversity.org/images/tjk/tjk_2004_5.jpg, visit this website!

maybe thesepics ,may help !

one more thing ,it is nothing wrong being look like mongolian!



Posted By: mongke
Date Posted: 28-Dec-2004 at 09:06
For all you turks think of it like this.  If the babe is hot she's turk if not she is ehhh... ugh...chinese


Posted By: Turk
Date Posted: 28-Dec-2004 at 17:05

Originally posted by perdon

President

Islam Karimov? Looks Russian to me.......



-------------


Posted By: perdon
Date Posted: 28-Dec-2004 at 22:07

Originally posted by mongke

For all you turks think of it like this.  If the babe is hot she's turk if not she is ehhh... ugh...chinese

 well,no turk think that way ! In every nation there are pretty people and ugly people ! what we are talking about is that turk looks like mongolian or caucasion !

for i was born this central asia,I have to say     no one real looks like mongolian but Kyrkiz and Kazak tend to be mongolian  ,but Tajik and Uzbek and Uyghur and tatar tend to be caucation ,I got a pic from friend in eastern Turkistan ,it is a uyhgur girl pic! 

 another pic of uyghurs

What I am trying to say ,even most eastern turk don't look like chinese or mongolian ,let alone the Uzbek and Tajik and Turkmen!!!!!!!

One more thing ,TURK GIRLS indeed are HOT !!!!!!!!!!!!  

 LOOOOOOOOOL! Chinese and MOngolian and other asian ,I almost get sick when I look at their eyes!they have the most ugly eyes ,but ther are also hot eastern asian though!!!



Posted By: Mustafa
Date Posted: 29-Dec-2004 at 02:31

Originally posted by perdon

LOOOOOOOOOL! Chinese and MOngolian and other asian ,I almost get sick when I look at their eyes!they have the most ugly eyes

How come there are so many damn racists here? When will people start opening up their minds just a little bit?

You are a disgrace to your people perdon! Shame on you! I hope not everyone in Uzbekistan is like that.  



Posted By: Chono
Date Posted: 29-Dec-2004 at 06:05
Yack, obscenity. For your information tuvinians, sakha, altai oirots, hakas don't look any different from mongolians. Original siberian uzbeks didn't look any different from mongolians. You make me sick. I'm never gonna go to Uzbekistan.


Posted By: Mustafa
Date Posted: 29-Dec-2004 at 06:36

Don't worry about this guy, Chono.  This is what happens when people forget or deny where their roots are and where they came from. This guy is more proud about the fact that there is persian mixed in him than about his east asian genes. Very typical attitude of a lot of Turkic people nowadays it seems. Very sad trend....and ignorant too!

Not just the turkic tribes you mentioned look like mongolians, but there is ample historical, genetic and logical evidence that *all* the original Turks looked like Mongolians (or do the Mongolians just look like the original Turks?  .

Funny, how the mongols and turks (especially under Jengiz Khan) are referred to as Turko-Mongols recognizing that they are more or less the same people.  That does not seem to have gotten into some people's heads.

I really hope that the majority of Uzbeks don't think this way....This kind of racist thought is truly DISGUSTING!

Take care,

Mustafa



Posted By: mongke
Date Posted: 29-Dec-2004 at 07:03
Remarkable considering how different uighurs  look from one region than on another and still consider themselves the same uighurs. As to racist some countries take pride in being homogenous that might be interpreted as being racist.


Posted By: cattus
Date Posted: 29-Dec-2004 at 07:07
Guys, one persons statement does NOT represent the feelings of any general populace.

Perdon, though the last statement of your last post is your opinion, i advise you to read the Code of Conduct,
specifically 5&6 of Inappropriate posting.

http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1338&PN=1&FID=1&PR=3 - CoC


Posted By: azimuth
Date Posted: 29-Dec-2004 at 08:47

nice pictures

i knew it  they dont look like east asians

and i think all nations has their special beautiness

but as far as i know the turk in china doesnt look like chinese

 

 



Posted By: Turk
Date Posted: 29-Dec-2004 at 11:58
Originally posted by Mustafa

Don't worry about this guy, Chono.  This is what happens when people forget or deny where their roots are and where they came from. This guy is more proud about the fact that there is persian mixed in him than about his east asian genes. Very typical attitude of a lot of Turkic people nowadays it seems. Very sad trend....and ignorant too!

Not just the turkic tribes you mentioned look like mongolians, but there is ample historical, genetic and logical evidence that *all* the original Turks looked like Mongolians (or do the Mongolians just look like the original Turks?  .

Funny, how the mongols and turks (especially under Jengiz Khan) are referred to as Turko-Mongols recognizing that they are more or less the same people.  That does not seem to have gotten into some people's heads.

I really hope that the majority of Uzbeks don't think this way....This kind of racist thought is truly DISGUSTING!

Take care,

Mustafa

Some would think it extremely ignorant to believe Turks and Mongols are the same people. The occupation force in Iraq is many times referred to as "Anglo-American" but that's to describe a political entity, not a culture or race. In fact the Huns were more commonly referred to as such by means of political identification, not race, because Indian and European records depicted them as Caucasian, although they came from the East.  

As for the repulsive comments by perdon...  An East Asian company probably made the computer you used to type those comments.



-------------


Posted By: Mustafa
Date Posted: 29-Dec-2004 at 17:06

Turk,

Again, you have not understood at all what I said. This whole time I have been talking about the "original turks", so why would I refer all of a sudden to modern turkic people now?  Although some turkic people are still steppe people and some mongols are steppe people, Turks are now mostly sedentary and racially highly mixed and mogols are becoming more and more sedentary also. 

When I say "Turko-Mongols" I am refering to turks and mongols of old times when they used to live in the same place and had the same culture. Get it?

As to your "huns were caucasians" theory...it's nonsense. Forget about it. If you have not noticed yet, steppe people were recruiting heavily from the populations of people they defeated, so it's not surprising that conquered people report seeing non-asian looking people. You really should go and read up on steppe people a little bit to get a an idea about what I am saying. The original people who recruited from the defeated people were asian through and through.

Read the following article before it disappears from the internet. It shows how the the original huns and avars that arrived in Europe were fully asian genetically as proven by examinations of hun and avar graves in Europe. Later on, as they conquered other people and recruited from them AND mixed with them, you start seeing genetically mixed huns and avars.

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:88z3wEgPGEoJ:www.fikas.no/~sprocket/snpa/chapter-VII2.htm+huns+buryat+skulls&hl=en - http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:88z3wEgPGEoJ:www.fikas. no/~sprocket/snpa/chapter-VII2.htm+huns+buryat+skulls&hl =en

So stop that nonsense about "huns were caucasian" (which would lead to "turks have always been caucasian since they come from the huns" nonsense type of circular reasoning based on a false premise).

It did not need an article like this to figure this out, since pure logic  and historical research could have shown you this, but for people like you that just don't want to give up their nonsense "turks were always caucasian" theory, one needs to go further and explain some more and hope that they finally get it in the end.

I sincerely hope that you really will understand better in the end. It's frustrating to try to explain the ovious so many times.

Mustafa



Posted By: TheOrcRemix
Date Posted: 29-Dec-2004 at 19:05
 all Turks in Turkey are mixed

-------------
True peace is not the absence of tension, but the presence of justice.
Sir Francis Drake is the REAL Pirate of the Caribbean


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 29-Dec-2004 at 21:02



Kyrgyz couple on their wedding day


Kyrgyz artists

--------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------


Kazakh artists



Posted By: perdon
Date Posted: 30-Dec-2004 at 00:53
Originally posted by Mustafa

Originally posted by perdon

LOOOOOOOOOL! Chinese and MOngolian and other asian ,I almost get sick when I look at their eyes!they have the most ugly eyes

How come there are so many damn racists here? When will people start opening up their minds just a little bit?

You are disgrace for your people perdon! Shame on you! I hope not everyone in Uzbekistan is like that.  



Posted By: perdon
Date Posted: 30-Dec-2004 at 01:42

CooL!!!!! It seems racist are not welcome here !

I am so sorry about what i said ! if it hurts someone who is chinese or some other estern asian ,I Apologize for that ,guys!

Uzbek is not racist at all! However ,Mustafa .I don't know if you are american ,but mustafa is an Arbic name ,right ,if you are ,I am sorry to remind you of two things ,one is Martin Luther king (he is famous for what)!the other is that how amrican troops treat irag captureed soldiors!

For the chinese ,I have to say ,you people treat Turks in China too bad ,you are not quolified to say the other nation is racist!

I never denied turks are from mongolia ,I think you people didn't read my post closly !

but I cannot stand you mr_known -nothings  damn talking about central asia people physical features !that is enough!

as to TURKs in TURkey  ,yes they are mixed ,but they are eauropean looking not central asian ,and I love turkish girls!

another thing ,there is a word to discribe eastern asian ,that is ,hetailar ,every turk in central asia understand it ! that express the feeling of turks towards eastern asian !

warning !!!!!!!!!!!!,this page should be talked about if turkish look like central asian not about central asians physical look!

sorry again ,as to Chono ,no one welcomes you to Uzbekistan !

 

 



Posted By: Turk
Date Posted: 30-Dec-2004 at 03:30
Originally posted by Mustafa

As to your "huns were caucasians" theory...it's nonsense. Forget about it. If you have not noticed yet, steppe people were recruiting heavily from the populations of people they defeated, so it's not surprising that conquered people report seeing non-asian looking people. You really should go and read up on steppe people a little bit to get a an idea about what I am saying. The original people who recruited from the defeated people were asian through and through.

I never said Huns were Caucasian. Stop twisting my posts.

You seem to be hooked on the idea that I advocate the image of the "Caucasian Turk", that maybe some of the elite in Turkey once envisioned during the early days of the Republic.

I said ancient sources depicted Huns as Caucasian, although they came from the East (which made them of course Asian). And I even went further to explain that the term Hun became a political entity, because like you said, they recruited conquered peoples. I didn't refute anything you just mentioned here.

You really need to stop arguing for no reason and provide a clear thesis before doing so..



-------------


Posted By: Turk
Date Posted: 30-Dec-2004 at 03:38

Perdon

Social darwinism is evil. Some Turks look like Central Asians, some don't. Just because some girl is bonde or blue eyed doesn't make her any less a Turk than the one who has black hair and almond eyes.

Your physical features have no impact on the culture you adopt, period. I was talking with some friends the other day, one of which was a Korean Christian, the other of which was an Anglo-American Buddhist. See what I mean.



-------------


Posted By: Chono
Date Posted: 30-Dec-2004 at 05:42
These some uzbeks and kirgiz, know nothing, have done nothing, don't possess even elementary skills of politeness, still maintain decades old soviet-fascist attitudes and think that's the very height of being civilized. Trying to deny that their very history has been shaped by mongols. Starting from Uzbek khan and Sheiban down to Tamerlane and Babur all had mongol blood, Tamerlane had slanted eyes, and this uzbek talking like this? Rediculous.


Posted By: battleaxe
Date Posted: 30-Dec-2004 at 21:15
Originally posted by perdon

For the chinese ,I have to say ,you people treat Turks in China too bad ,you are not quolified to say the other nation is racist!

i think insulting the eye-shape of east asians in general, not just chinese but mongols, koreans, japanese, etc...is a very bad way to promote sympathy for the turks being oppressed in china...and by the way, i don't think the chinese treat the mongols or manchus or koreans in the PRC THAT much better than they treat the turks.

 

[/QUOTE




Posted By: Turk
Date Posted: 30-Dec-2004 at 22:12

Originally posted by Chono

know nothing, have done nothing, don't possess even elementary skills of politeness, still maintain decades old soviet-fascist attitudes and think that's the very height of being civilized. 

 This is certainly a disease throughout Central Asia and rampant among many. Try having to put up with Azeris. Let's just forget about them.



-------------


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 01-Jan-2005 at 05:38

Ok. I think this topic really got out of the way! But the only single thing that I will mention is the difference between OGHUZ and other TURKİC nations...

Firstly... Today, the Oguz people rule three countries...

Turkey, Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan...

A Turkmen woman and two Turkmen girls...

An old Turkmen in a bazaar...

 The president of Turkmenistan, Türkmenbaşı...

A traditional Turkmen girl.

The Oguz people were mostly living in central and western terrattorries even before the Gokturks, and during the Hun rule. They were nomads, so they migrated to eastern Caspian terrattorries and todays khazakstan during the Hun rule. In the Göktürk Writings, they are always called as "Oguz" and as a different group of people living under the rule of Göktürks, a western Turkish tribe...

The Oguz people were divided into two main groups. Eastern Oguz (BOZOK) and western Oguz (ÜÇOK). The builders of the Seljuk Empire, Ottoman Empire are both western Oguz people, ÜÇOK...

The Oguz are a Turkic group who speak a Turkic language, own a central asian culture and belong the mixed race of caucasian and central asian. And even today, a person who is travelling all Turkic republics would see that the Kyrgz, Kazak look very central asian, but others not. I know that lots of people in Turkmenistan looks some central asian, but they are not very much and most of them are Kyrgz and Kazak. Also I accept that lots of people, maybe more than the half of modern Turkey population is partly mixed with other nations. But this doesnt show that the reason that Turks dont look central asian ( most of Turkey's Turks) is because of mixing with Anatolians and Middle Easterns. This is because we were some Caucasian and some central Asian since we became nomads.

This is the destiny of the real nomad... I think from the beginning, being a "Turk" doesn't represent being the same race... From The Hun, Göktürk times to the Ottoman period, it was the common culture, common goal, and the common fathers that meant being a "Turk"...



-------------


Posted By: Mustafa
Date Posted: 01-Jan-2005 at 16:48
Originally posted by Oguzoglu

Also I accept that lots of people, maybe more than the half of modern Turkey population is partly mixed with other nations. But this doesnt show that the reason that Turks dont look central asian ( most of Turkey's Turks) is because of mixing with Anatolians and Middle Easterns. This is because we were some Caucasian and some central Asian since we became nomads.

--I can almost assure you that pretty much *all* of the population of Turkey are mixed people. The nomadic turks that came to present day Turkey did not have enough numbers to settle newly conquered territories with their own people. So, people living there were "turkicized" and the few original turks themselves who remained there mixed into the population. That's reality and genetic and historic analysis can prove that easily. 

 "Maybe more half of the the population of modern Turkey is partly mixed" (as you said above) is just (once again) wishful thinking about a genetically distinct population in Turkey. It's just not reality. The vast majority of Turks today look either greek or middle eastern in general and a lot of them (especially from Trakya and Istanbul areas) even look like they are from the Balkans and other, more northerly parts of Europe. That's nowhere close to the look of the racially mixed populations of central asia today.

Mustafa



Posted By: blitz
Date Posted: 02-Jan-2005 at 05:22
I don t understand why the Rep.Turkey is called so. It called before it Osmanli, but after Ottoman Empire, suddenly Turkey. In my opinion, this name doesn t match, because the majority of these people have non turkic origin. 





     

-------------
Road to wisdom: err, err and err. But less, less and less!


Posted By: azimuth
Date Posted: 02-Jan-2005 at 06:50

Originally posted by blitz

I don t understand why the Rep.Turkey is called so. It called before it Osmanli, but after Ottoman Empire, suddenly Turkey. In my opinion, this name doesn t match, because the majority of these people have non turkic origin.  

i think they belive that they are Turkic orgin

and the name turkey may be chosen by Mustafa kamal Ataturk 

 

?



Posted By: blitz
Date Posted: 02-Jan-2005 at 07:56
I read, his real name was Mustafa Kemal. He gave himself the titel "Ataturk",
which means "horseman turk".

I think, the leading people of Turkey of that time needed a "role model" from the past after the breakdown of Ottoman Empire or Osmanli on turkic and they liked the history of the true turks of 6t century. So they called themselves Turkey, though they were not turkic.  


-------------
Road to wisdom: err, err and err. But less, less and less!


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 02-Jan-2005 at 09:24

I don't underestand what do you mean by that but being a turk has nothing with genetics or racial history.Turkish is language and culture like Latin Arabic Indian and .....

This epic that all real turks are completely or mostly are descendent of Cental Asia is actually was invented in 20s and 30s because turkish leaders at that time thaught that they need a new identity and theory that could replace Islam and Empire and rise a sense of nationalism to unify their people and guard them against new doctorines like communism and fashism.

If this doctorine today is synonyme with dogmatism, fashism and racism modern followers must be blamed because they think an archaic thing thing that was good 80 years ago still must be good and this is wrong.Modern Turkey does not need such stories.

Actually until the foundation of Panturkism theory in the late of 19th Century ,only people of Ottoman empires were called Turks by others.(Although in time of Hamidian Pan Islamic era this term was used for poor anatolian peasants in the empire itself and osmanli was used insteasd of it because they feared using word turk would intensify seperatist movement).

Turkey is Turkey and will be remained Turkey and this does not have any contradiction with democracy ,and human rights and having respect with minorities rights.(for example kurds)

Turkey's nation for achieiving prosperity will have many works to do than changing the name of their country and in my view name of Turkey has nothing with Panturkism ideaology.



-------------


Posted By: Turk
Date Posted: 02-Jan-2005 at 15:19

Wow, okay......

First of all, Ataturk means "Father Turk", not "horseman turk" (where do you people come up with this stuff?). Ata is not the Turkish word for horse, it is the old Turkish word for father. Do not confuse it with the word at (meaning horse).

The Osmanli Imparatorlugu (Ottoman Empire) was named after it's founder, Osman. You forget that after the disentegration of the Seljuk Empire there were NUMEROUS Turkic clans in Anatolia attempting to reassert control. The clan of Osman happened to be the most successful obviously, but they were all Turks part of a certain clan. That simple. For example in Japan there were numerous clans (named after their founders) during the civil wars, but they were all still Japanese.

If someone back in those days asked what ethnicity you were, "Ottoman" was not a sufficient answer. There were always Turks, Greeks, Albanians, Hungarians, Egyptians, etc. These ethnic groups and cultures did not disappear after the entity known as the Ottoman Empire asserted control over their homelands.

Mustafa is right in saying that Turks being part of an exact or distinct ethnic group is just wishful thinking. Turkish is a culture not based whatsoever on your physical description. Identifying the similarities or differences etc of cultures by how much the peoples face's look like one another is absolutely absurd.

Omid, your political beliefs about us have no relevance to the topic. If you want to rant about Turks and our politics (an irani national pastime) do it elsewhere without hijacking a thread.



-------------


Posted By: Mustafa
Date Posted: 02-Jan-2005 at 22:48

Blitz,

Where the heck are you getting this type of ridiculous information from? As "Turk" has said above, "Ata" means "father" or "forefather" and "Ataturk" means "father of the turks."  "Ata" is still used in many other Turkic languages as the word for "father" (as in Uzbek, for example).  This is what happens when someone knows of fragments of Turkish.....such a person makes a horse out of a father.

As to the Ottomans, "Turk" already explained above, but let me add that Europeans themselves at that time would call the Ottomans simply Turks and not "Ottomans", when they were refering to them. Everyone knows that...you're not the best informed person out there, are you, "Blitz?"

Mustafa



Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 03-Jan-2005 at 06:18
Originally posted by Turk

Omid, your political beliefs about us have no relevance to the topic.

It was not political view it was an answer to blitz quotes.

Originally posted by Turk

 do it elsewhere without hijacking a thread.

I tell whatever I want and if you have any objection there are moderators who will hear you.

Originally posted by Turk

(an irani national pastime)

National Iranian pastimes are Arabs,Islam,and mullahs.You are not interesting enough.

Originally posted by Turk

 If you want to rant about Turks and our politics 

This is the last time I will answer such meaningless quotes.

And now the Topic:

I will confirm one time more :

It is impossible for a group of nomads to do any significant changes in the genetics of a sedentary nation,unless they sweep all of the population and no seljuks and no other turkomens tribes and no ottomans did such a thing i the Anatolia.
So the most populations of turkey nowadays are remenants of the older populations of Anatolia.



-------------


Posted By: Alparslan
Date Posted: 03-Jan-2005 at 07:51

Originally posted by maximilian

Or, the nomadic people of central asia??? Can anyone tell me what is the ethnical structure of Turks? are they indo european, middle eastern, central asian or what? Do they look like their ancestors??? ( Well, I don't think so...
>>

I will try to explain shortly.

Originally posted by perdon

uyhgur's ancestor is oghus ,(Tiele ) ,the same with nowday turkish ,but later they moved to Xinkiang ,mixed with tochorien (indu european),

Societies are not rigid structures.  Are Germans of Germany today are the same as their ancestors of 1500 years ego? Or what about Austrians? It is supposed Germans to be blond but even in countries considered German in origin, we see a very important non-blond population. We see an important Arab influence on Spanish people even on their culture, just look at their music. Or are the English people look like their Angle-Saxon ancestors?

Today’s Turks are a mixture of Oghuz Turks (Uighurs, Tocharians, Sakas, Sogdians, Uzbeks, Persians and Mongolians), Kuman-Kipchaks Turks (Crimean Tatars), converted Anatolian and Balkan populations including Albanians, Serbs, Bulgars, Greeks etc., Caucassians including Caucassian Turks, Adige, Georgians and Armenians and same Middle Eastern peoples such as Kurds and Arabs to a lesser extent.

If we dig in we get a more complicated issue since when we say “Balkan populations”, we also include an important number of Turkish tribes who were living in Balkans even before Turks arrived to Anatolia but most of them have been converted during time. For example Bulgars are a Turkic tribe. The name of the Bulgar ruler who first accepted Christianity is Omurtag Kagan was Turkic. Later due to religious and growing Slavic influences they have lost their Turkic identity. Along with Bulgars we know that there were important Turkish tribes such as Pechenegs, Guz (Oghuzs), Kumans who had come and settled in Balkans and later accepted Christianity and disappeared.  Some of them have been settled in Anatolia by Byzantines and they served in Byzantine armies.  Before this, Huns in Europe were the first known Turkic tribe, which doesn’t mean that they were the first since we simply do not know if there were other Turkic elements came before them to Europe. Again Avars who were possibly Turkic had played important role in European history too. I think even the name Bavaria (Avaria) in Germany may be a heritage of them.

We dig in more and we saw that Selchuk Beg, the founder of Selchuks who will be the first known Turks came to Anatolia from the east was the son of one of the commanders of Khazar Kagan, has accepted Islam in Cend, Iran in 985. His sons’ name were Mikhail, Israil showing a big possibility that he was a Jews. (Khazars were a Turkic tribe forming the western edge of Kokturk Empire who were accepted Judaism. It is tought that Eastern Europe’s Jews have Khazar and so Turkic origin. If you watch Discovery Channel you will see Karaim Turks Jews who were living in Lithuania and Poland speaking Turkish and they are caucausoid. It seems like they are the latest one who remember their roots but we see Turkish in the surnames of many East European (Askhenazi) surnames.) I have written this to indicate how this issues are complicated.

Turks came to Anatolia from the east during hundreds of years starting with Menzigert in 1071 until Chenggis Khan attacks on Transoxiana and Khorasan. Especially number of refugees escaping from Ghenggis Khan was huge.  

Originally posted by Christscrusader

Most turks on the coast lines are converted Greeks and now are part of the Turkish mainstream. The Turkish basketball team doenst look central asian? ALL the important political figures have the European Medditteranian look, not the Central Asian look.

This is wrong claiming in that “most Turks on the coast lines are converted Greeks”. First of all great majority of Anatolian Greeks are converted Anatolians. Akhas from whom the name of Hellenes derived had come to Anatolia from the Dorian pressure and we do not know if the Dorians were speaking a Greek language at the beginning. What we known, after a dark period in Greece, Dorians (mainland Greeks) were speaking a sort of Greek. It is not possible to claim that Dorians were kin to Akhas. From that point of view the famous Trojan War parties are related with today’s Anatolian Turks but not mainland Greeks. So calling Hellenes for today’s Greeks is wrong. Only in times of Macedonian Alexander the Greek culture has started to spread even if Greeks were not considered him as Greek but they were forced to accept him so. All of these happened nearly 2500 years ego. It is very hard to claim that today’s Greeks are related with ancient Greeks or to some extent they are related with them. The population structure of the area was changed so that Athens was a small village in 15th century.

The Anatolian Turks do not look Central Asian since the population structure has changed in Central Asia too. We can not say that Turks were originally Mongoloid or not, since talking about an origin is beyond our scope of knowledge. The “homeland” of nations is still a matter of discussion in academic arena and there is not a consensus on it neither for Indo-Europeans nor Turks. Even if we get concrete information that they were Mongoloids, this will not change the fact that they have mixed with all other nations on their long way to Anatolia and gained their caucausoid features. It is generally accepted that Turks’ homeland is in Altais. We have both Caucosid and Mongolid skeletons there.    

Originally posted by Chono

In ancient chinese documents turkic speakers have frequently been described as caucasian looking. Probably, turkic speaking people have been a mixture all along.

Chono is right. Look at the Chinese chronicals……. You can also look at Byzantine choronicals who have been diplomatic relations with Kokturks, who send and accepted diplomatic envoys. Byzantines relates Turks with Scythians.

Originally posted by Omid

This epic that all real turks are completely or mostly are descendent of Cental Asia is actually was invented in 20s and 30s because turkish leaders at that time thaught that they need a new identity  

It is not like this. There is not a concept like “real Turk” which was invented in 20s and 30s. It is an undeniable fact that there is a clear link between Turkey’s Turks and Central Asia. A new identity was a must since as the main body of Ottoman Empire Turks had preserved their stance of Ottoman identity until the end, which in fact emptied by nationalism of other components of the Empire. Like every other nation states Turks have established their own nation state and as a nation how do you expect that they can deny their past in Central Asia? But they have also included Anatolian civilization in this identity too. For example the symbol of new capital, Ankara is the symbol of Hittites (the Hittite Sun).   

Originally posted by blitz

I don t understand why the Rep.Turkey is called so. It called before it Osmanli, but after Ottoman Empire, suddenly Turkey. In my opinion, this name doesn t match, because the majority of these people have non turkic origin. 

Originally posted by blitz

they liked the history of the true turks of 6t century. So they called themselves Turkey, though they were not turkic.  

So I think blitz says that we should change the name of our country. So what do you propose blitz? LOL

Anatolia had first called as Turkey by Crusaders in 11th century.

Originally posted by Mustafa

Turks being part of an exact or distinct ethnic group is just wishful thinking..  

You are thinking the same for all nations, I hope Mustafa…..

 

Originally posted by Omid

I will confirm one time more :

It is impossible for a group of nomads to do any significant changes in the genetics of a sedentary nation,unless they sweep all of the population and no seljuks and no other turkomens tribes and no ottomans did such a thing i the Anatolia.
So the most populations of turkey nowadays are remenants of the older populations of Anatolia.

It seems like you do not know the old saying "Nomads do it better". (An old Persian (not Iranian) proverb)

Anyway, they were not all nomads. I think you have to get more info about steppes social structure and Turkish settled cities in Central Asia and Iran. 



Posted By: Christscrusader
Date Posted: 03-Jan-2005 at 19:25

ALPARSLAN

I was talking about the Byzantine times, not the ANCIENT times. Most of the peoples in Anatolia were Byzantine greeks, and when TUrkish rule came apon them, many converted for various reasons, some for taxes, and some were taken and to be converted and trained in the great jannisary, or just overtime lost  contact with there greek culture and became accepted in the mainstream. Of course, there are always exceptions.



-------------
Heaven helps those, who help themselves.
-Jc


Posted By: azimuth
Date Posted: 04-Jan-2005 at 01:20

i read something intersting about Turkish orgin

it is not Logic but it was written hunderds of years ago in an Arabic History books written by Ibn Katheer  the books name is (Albedayah wa Alnehayah)  which means (The Beginning and The End)

any way it mention that Prophet Noah had three sons Ham, Sam and Yafath (Japheth) in english

and from Japheth the Turkish came and they were called Turk is from the Arabic word Tarak which means (left behind 

why?

because when Dhu alqarneen (Two Horned man) locked Yajoj and Majoj (Gog and Magog) he left a third group which called the Turk ( the left behind)

 which means Dhu algarneen left them behind and didnt lock them with Gog and Magog in the Dam.

 

 



Posted By: Alparslan
Date Posted: 04-Jan-2005 at 03:54
Originally posted by Christscrusader

ALPARSLAN

I was talking about the Byzantine times, not the ANCIENT times. Most of the peoples in Anatolia were Byzantine greeks, and when TUrkish rule came apon them, many converted for various reasons, some for taxes, and some were taken and to be converted and trained in the great jannisary, or just overtime lost  contact with there greek culture and became accepted in the mainstream. Of course, there are always exceptions.

You are too much undermining both Byzantines and Turks. Byzantine Greeks and Anatolia cannot be converted with a few hundred thousands Turks. Anatolia has been ruined both structurally and economically by crusades during 12 and 13 th centuries. Turks had come to Anatolia during hundreds of years. In addition to this there were converted Turks inside Byzantine society too.  

It is sure that there are also converted Byzantine Greeks to Islam but their number was not that much from which you conclude that "Turks are converted Greeks".

As far as jannisaries are concerned young Christian childs have been collected every 2, 3 or sometimes 5 years according to needs of the state and army. The parties were usually containing 2 or 3 thousands youngsters. This system has been used for around 350 years. Jannisaries were not allowed to get married until they are retired. They were living in barracks. So their influence on Turkish society today is not as much as you think. 

 



Posted By: Alparslan
Date Posted: 04-Jan-2005 at 03:59
Originally posted by azimuth

i read something intersting about Turkish orgin

it is not Logic but it was written hunderds of years ago in an Arabic History books written by Ibn Katheer  the books name is (Albedayah wa Alnehayah)  which means (The Beginning and The End)

any way it mention that Prophet Noah had three sons Ham, Sam and Yafath (Japheth) in english

and from Japheth the Turkish came and they were called Turk is from the Arabic word Tarak which means (left behind 

why?

because when Dhu alqarneen (Two Horned man) locked Yajoj and Majoj (Gog and Magog) he left a third group which called the Turk ( the left behind)

 which means Dhu algarneen left them behind and didnt lock them with Gog and Magog in the Dam.

 

 

Very scientific indeed!!!



Posted By: azimuth
Date Posted: 04-Jan-2005 at 04:17

 

well i mentioned that it is not logic

that was how people long time ago think of turks

 

 



Posted By: Turk
Date Posted: 04-Jan-2005 at 04:49
Originally posted by azimuth

 

well i mentioned that it is not logic

that was how arabs thought long time ago and still think of turks

 

 

corrected.

It's sickening how some people manipulate religion to make other Muslims believe something when they are really just preaching their own culture (I'm referring to the author of that article you read).



-------------


Posted By: Mustafa
Date Posted: 04-Jan-2005 at 06:01

Hello Alparslan,

Glad you joined the discussion. My comments are below.

 

Originally posted by Alparslan

Societies are not rigid structures.  Are Germans of Germany today are the same as their ancestors of 1500 years ego?

 

--Actually, they probably are very similar. Germanic people have been a very homogeneous society, although recently that might be changing. I lived in Germany for most of my life and know Germany's and Europe history very well. Since these people were sedentary they would not leave their villages and settlements pretty much all their lives. Until modern times the typical German or central european would not go further than maybe 30km within the circumference of his/her village/settlement. They would pretty much be born an die in the same place. There was not a whole lot of mixing going on there if at all.

 

When wars took place and different rulers gained or lost land they new ruler would just take over and start collecting taxes. They would not settle new people in the conquered areas. So...again..no mixing.

 

You have to admit that this is vastly different from what we are talking about here. Steppe nomads would cover more space in a day than a German would cover in his/her whole lifetime!

 

Plus...with Turks we are talking about mixture between caucasians and asians. In Central Europe it would just be different tribes of caucasians and it would not make such a huge difference on their genotype and  phenotype.

 

Or what about Austrians? It is supposed Germans to be blond but even in countries considered German in origin, we see a very important non-blond population.

 

--Nobody ever seriously says that ALL Germans should be blondes. That's ridiculous. Blondes are generally rare among caucasians although they occur at higher frequencies in northern Europe and among Germanic people. Even places like Sweden or Norway are not all blonde or red haired. In any case...see above...these are all caucasian..blonde or not. Not all asians have jet-black hair either by the way. I know some chinese people personally who have pretty light brown hair with an asian face and they are not mixed with caucasians. Also, there was quite a bit of mixture going on in asian countries, too, but you would not notice that all that much in the phenotype. If Turks, assuming they were originally asian, which makes total sense by the way, had mixed with Koreans, you would not consider Turks a "mixed population" today. So the comparison with a "mixed" German population is like comparing apples with oranges.

 

We see an important Arab influence on Spanish people even on their culture, just look at their music. Or are the English people look like their Angle-Saxon ancestors?

 

--All caucasian people and all sedentary people. See above. Plus, the Maurs that conquered half of spain back then are probably, at least to a degree if not fully, genetic descendants of tribes like the Vandals that migrated to North Africa from Northern Europe and probably mixed with the original population. 

 

Today’s Turks are a mixture of Oghuz Turks (Uighurs, Tocharians, Sakas, Sogdians, Uzbeks, Persians and Mongolians),

 

--Since when are Uighurs part of the Oguz? Since when are Tocharians even Turkic? Since when are Sakas Turkic? Persians? Mongols? I hope you were just enumarating the different peoples that *might* have mixed with the turks instead of implying that the poepl ementioned int he parantheses are Oghuz.

 

 Again Avars who were possibly Turkic had played important role in European history too. I think even the name Bavaria (Avaria) in Germany may be a heritage of them.

 

--I'm sorry but this is just total nonsense. The real name of "Bavaria" in German is actually "Bayern", which does not sound anything like "Avar" and the name "Bayern" was derived from the name of a Germanic tribe called "Bajuwaren" in German. They had absolute NOTHING to do with the avars. Where in the heck are you getting *misinformation* like that? This is the type of typical Turkish "wishful thinking" I have been refering to all over this thread. It's as if Turks had a hand in EVERYTHING that happened in world history....this is simply not reality.

Chono is right. Look at the Chinese chronicalsE. You can also look at Byzantine choronicals who have been diplomatic relations with Kokturks, who send and accepted diplomatic envoys. Byzantines relates Turks with Scythians.

 

--Umm...so what the Byzantines compard the Turks to Scythians? This just says that they compared them culturally and NOT genetically or by look. After all...the Scythians were the nomads known best to the Byzantines from antinquity. This does not prove anything. And as I have already told Chono, the couple times chinese pointed out unusual featers among *SOME* Turkic tribes does not mean that Turks always had caucasian blood in them or, as some extremists claim, descended from caucasians. Obviously, the vast majority of the time the Chinese did NOT point out any unuusual physical features about the Turks, which should imply that they were just as asian lookin as anyone else in that area of Asia at that time.

 

 

[

Originally posted by Mustafa

Turks being part of an exact or distinct ethnic group is just wishful thinking..  

You are thinking the same for all nations, I hope MustafaE

 

--Yes....I am...but to different degrees as I have tried to demonstrate with the Germans above. But again....don't compare apples with oranges. Turks were nomads and most of the world wasn't. So, you can compare turks best only to other nomads.

 

 

Mustafa



Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 04-Jan-2005 at 07:09
I don't understand why do you guys keep giving examples from the Kazakhs. The Kazakh Turks are Turkic people ofcourse but they are not from Oghuz Turks. The Oghuz Turks are Turks from Turkey, Azerbadjan, Turkmenistan, Northern Cyprus and the Turkmens of Northern Iraq. I mean comparing an Oghuz Turk with a non-Oghuz Turk makes no sence. Because the Oghuz Turks are considered as Caucausid_Europid racialy. That means non-Oghuz Turks such as Kazakhs, Uigurs, Tajiks and Kirgizs have more mongolid genes and background than the Oghuz Turks.
Here's a link about the Oghuz Turks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oghuz_Turks



-------------


Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date Posted: 04-Jan-2005 at 09:34

"That means non-Oghuz Turks such as Kazakhs, Uigurs, Tajiks and Kirgizs have more mongolid genes and background than the Oghuz Turks." Is there any reason that you called Tajiks as Turks?!!

What about Turks of southern Iran?


Young children of Turkashvand tribe in Khuzestan


Qashqai girl from Fars



-------------


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 04-Jan-2005 at 11:54

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oghuz_Turks - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oghuz_Turks

Everything is written here...



-------------


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 04-Jan-2005 at 13:48
I think all this talk about the "stereotype" of a Turk is non-sense. I would like to go even further than that, creating "stereotypes" for any race is non-sense. Lets all be honest-there hardly exists a race that has remained pure over time. Enough information has been given above, but I would like to further say this: Turks of Anatolia are united not on stereotypes and physical outlook, they are united in the sense of belonging to a common culture and language:which we call a nation.

-------------


Posted By: Mustafa
Date Posted: 04-Jan-2005 at 13:50

Here we go again....this is getting really frustrating. Do they teach any kind of logiccal thinking in Turkey anymore?  I hope this is just a language problem and not a general problem of logical thinking.

Originally posted by Attila

I don't understand why do you guys keep giving examples from the Kazakhs. The Kazakh Turks are Turkic people ofcourse but they are not from Oghuz Turks.

--Do you think the "Oghuz" Turks developed all by themselves in central asia? People don't develop independently from each other and share the same genes and culture. All Turkic people go back to the same root and if you want to answer the question "What did Turks originally look like" you have to go back in time before Turks starting moving westward and mixing with other people. That was (most likely) even before there were any Oghuz or Kazak.  Does it make sense to you now?

The Oghuz Turks are Turks from Turkey, Azerbadjan, Turkmenistan, Northern Cyprus and the Turkmens of Northern Iraq. I mean comparing an Oghuz Turk with a non-Oghuz Turk makes no sence.

--So, I am sure that the Oguz Turks were always in those places listed by you, right? I am sure they are not from central asia, right? (attention: SARCASM!). Have you been reading this thread at all? Do you even know what we are talking about? Everyone knows that currently most of the Turkic world is mixed...that's not the question here. The question (for some people anyways since it's clear to me) is if Turks originally were asian or caucasian. Get it? Now go back and read the other posts in this thread a little more thoroughly as to not waste other people's times repeating things that have already been said.

 

Because the Oghuz Turks are considered as Caucausid_Europid racialy.

--Oh really? And did YOU just establish that? The level of ignorance here is amazing....why don't you go tell this to some asian looking Turkmens in Turkmenistan? In any case, although most of the Oguz nowadays are caucasian or caucasian looking, that does not mean that they were ORIGINALLY caucasian....again, go back and read the previous posts. Having to explain to you what "Oghuz" turks really are is just a waste of time.

That means non-Oghuz Turks such as Kazakhs, Uigurs, Tajiks and Kirgizs have more mongolid genes and background than the Oghuz Turks.

--My God...I really feel like apologizing for the level of ignorance you are displaying. People are going to think that ALL Turks from Turkey are ignorant like you (and some others here) and lack any kind of logical thinking skills.

First of all...TAJIKS ARE NOT TURKS. There is a HUGE Uzbek Minority there (over 1 million people), but the Tajiks themselves are neither culturally nor linguistically Turks. They are a persian people. Second, we discussed SEVERAL TIMES above WHY Kazaks, Uigurs etc. have more east asian genes than Turks in Turkey. Were you reading any of that at all before posting your nonsense here? You don't even have any idea what the Topic here is, haven't thoroughly read any of the discussion before and come here and waste people's time by posting something that is not only utterly wrong but totally misses the point. This is hardly excusable by saying: "Oh..the poor guy has a language problem. His English might not be all that goodl."

Here's a link about the Oghuz Turks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oghuz_Turks

--Oh my god....what an authoritative and scientific source.   Do you even know what Wikipedia is? It's an encyclopedia that can be changed by ANYONE on the internet. I could go in there right now and write: "The Oghuz Turks are originally from the Amazon forest in South America and are closely related to the Yanomami tribe." and Wikipedia would accept it and display this "fact" to the whole world.

With sources like this, no wonder you miss the point totally and have no idea what you are talking about. Why make yourself ridiculous if you are not even sure what you are talking about?

Mustafa



Posted By: Mustafa
Date Posted: 04-Jan-2005 at 13:57
Originally posted by Oguzoglu

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oghuz_Turks - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oghuz_Turks

Everything is written here...

 

---Hahaha...this is so ignorant it's almost funny. "Everything" is written there.   YOu also seem to not have realized that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that can freely be changed and enhanced by ANYONE! Yes, even you could go there and spread your ignorance, and other people just like you could post a link to your crap to back up their own ignorant arguments. Does that make sense to you?

Let me just clarify for everyone else that I don't think all of Wikipedia is crap, but that it just has no scientific value if it can be changed by anyone out there regardless of his/her qualifications.



Posted By: Mustafa
Date Posted: 04-Jan-2005 at 14:02

Turko,

I agree with you, but that is not what the topic is here. The topic started with the question "What does the typical Turk look like?". After we established that there no typical "turkish/turkic" look I brought up the issue of the genetic origins of all the Turks way back in history. That's what we are discussing now and the discussion is not just limited to the Turks in Anatolia.

Mustafa

Originally posted by turko

I think all this talk about the "stereotype" of a Turk is non-sense. I would like to go even further than that, creating "stereotypes" for any race is non-sense. Lets all be honest-there hardly exists a race that has remained pure over time. Enough information has been given above, but I would like to further say this: Turks of Anatolia are united not on stereotypes and physical outlook, they are united in the sense of belonging to a common culture and language:which we call a nation.



Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 04-Jan-2005 at 14:18
Originally posted by Mustafa

Originally posted by Oguzoglu

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oghuz_Turks -   YOu also seem to not have realized that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that can freely be changed and enhanced by ANYONE! Yes, even you could go there and spread your ignorance, and other people just like you could post a link to your crap to back up their own ignorant arguments. Does that make sense to you?

Let me just clarify for everyone else that I don't think all of Wikipedia is crap, but that it just has no scientific value if it can be changed by anyone out there regardless of his/her qualifications.



ok Mr. Anthropolog... What's written on wikipedia are the results of some anthropologic researchs not a movie scenario... 


-------------


Posted By: Mustafa
Date Posted: 04-Jan-2005 at 17:07


ok Mr. Anthropolog... What's written on wikipedia are the results of some anthropologic researchs not a movie scenario... 

Oh really? And you were there when all these anthropologists made their entries into Wikipedia? Are you the self-appointed "Wikipedia Quality Control Agent?" I'll say it again: Anyone can make entries into Wikipedia and there is no quality control. Just accept it without making yourself more ridiculous any further.

Mustafa



Posted By: Christscrusader
Date Posted: 04-Jan-2005 at 17:09
tru dat

-------------
Heaven helps those, who help themselves.
-Jc


Posted By: perdon
Date Posted: 04-Jan-2005 at 20:39

Originally posted by Chono

These some uzbeks and kirgiz, know nothing, have done nothing, don't possess even elementary skills of politeness, still maintain decades old soviet-fascist attitudes and think that's the very height of being civilized. Trying to deny that their very history has been shaped by mongols. Starting from Uzbek khan and Sheiban down to Tamerlane and Babur all had mongol blood, Tamerlane had slanted eyes, and this uzbek talking like this? Rediculous.

soviet facist attitudes ? God!!! well,aren't you mongolian infulenced by russian?  i have some mongolian friends from outer mongolia ,they speak russian to each other ,not mongolian ,look at your country ,a morden city of mongolia is greatly influnced by russia ! Chono ,you should be an comedian actor in Hollywood!

SORRy ,Chingis han's time is over !!!!you mongolian are able to fight ,very good fighter ,this is true !but you guys don't have the ability to shape a culture or a society ,got it?look at your religion ,you got it from tibeten ,look at your scripture is baseed on uyghur ,see! what you leave in central asia ! nothing!you'd better not talk about civilization !!!!!! it is not fit for neither ancient mongolian or nowdays mongol!

yes,Timarlane has mongol blood!!!!!!!that can explain why he killed so many people in persia! 

I have apologized for what I talked about your people's eyes,but i don't mean to insult you people !! but personly ,I really don't like that kind of eyes,! I am sorry !

 

 

 

 



Posted By: perdon
Date Posted: 04-Jan-2005 at 20:51

Originally posted by Attila

The Oghuz Turks are Turks from Turkey, Azerbadjan, Turkmenistan, Northern Cyprus and the Turkmens of Northern Iraq. 

 Because the Oghuz Turks are considered as Caucausid_Europid racialy. That means non-Oghuz Turks such as Kazakhs, Uigurs, Tajiks and Kirgizs have more mongolid genes and background than the Oghuz Turks.
Here's a link about the Oghuz Turks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oghuz_Turks

the oghus turks above you listed ,it is only lingual classification ! not ethnically!

GOD! tajik is a turkicfied persian ! nonsense you are talking about,they are real caucasian in central asia!! uyhgur is between persian and central asian ! kazak indeed look more like mogolian!

 



Posted By: Murph
Date Posted: 04-Jan-2005 at 21:05
haha,  mustafa you can really rip people's arguements apart, nice job, its fun to read your stuff...even though i don't really understand since i know nothing about central asia

-------------


Posted By: perdon
Date Posted: 04-Jan-2005 at 21:06

    There is a HUGE Uzbek Minority there (over 1 million people), but the Tajiks themselves are neither culturally nor linguistically Turks. . Second, we discussed SEVERAL TIMES above WHY Kazaks, Uigurs etc. have more east asian genes than Turks in Turkey.

[/QUOTE]

Mr mustafa  ! tajik in central asia are not turks in deed ,they are persian ,but culturely ,they lost everything they have ! they keep the language though! but you know ,Uzbek and uyhgur langauge has al ot of words form persian ! and they get maried with uzbek and uyhgur ! why don't just call them turks!!!!they controled by uzbek too long time !!

where do you get the concultion that uyhgur look like mongolian ,have you ever been there before?have you seen the uyhgur image in this forum!have you seen their eyes ?

 

 



Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 04-Jan-2005 at 23:46

My heavens!!!This topic is too hot!!!
But I will Start with History:

Originally posted by Alparslan


I think even the name Bavaria (Avaria) in Germany may be a heritage of them.

Bavaia has got its name from a germanic tribe which named Bavarian.The name Bavaria as a place has been mentioned in 480 A.D. and at that time there was no Avars in Europe.
Originally posted by Alparslan


We dig in more and we saw that Selchuk Beg, the founder of Selchuks who will be the first known Turks came to Anatolia from the east was the son of one of the commanders of Khazar Kagan, has accepted Islam in Cend, Iran in 985

Seljuq (Saljuqh) was son of Doqaq(Doqhaqh)one of the leading persons (or leader) of Qniq tribe one of the tribes of Oghuz federations.No source has mentioned any relationship between Seljuq ,Duqaq and Khazars.

Second Cend(jand actually) was not in Iran, It was near Arla sea near Khwarazm kingdom.

Originally posted by Alparslan


His sons’ name were Mikhail, Israil showing a big possibility that he was a Jews. (Khazars were a Turkic tribe forming the western edge of Kokturk Empire who were accepted Judaism. 

first:having jewish names does not necessirily indicate they were jew.
Second:Every Turkic jew was not necesserily a Khazar
Third : Do you know How Khazars accepted Judaism?Babel and Iran were one of the centres of judaism in the dawn of middle ages.from there two branch of jewish migration begunne from the cacausus and one from Transoxiana along the Seyr Darya.
Finding jewish names between Oghuz or other eastern turkish tribes is linked with jewish migration along the transoxiana, and these names could be because of culturallinks not just religous matters.
Originally posted by Alparslan


It is tought that Eastern Europe’s Jews have Khazar and so Turkic origin. If you watch Discovery Channel you will see Karaim Turks Jews who were living in Lithuania and Poland speaking Turkish and they are caucausoid. It seems like they are the latest one who remember their roots but we see Turkish in the surnames of many East European (Askhenazi) surnames.) I have written this to indicate how this issues are complicated.

Actually you must say that:
It was thaught in Soviet schools that:
Eastern Europe’s Jews have Khazar and so Turkic origin.


This is an absolute propaganda which invented by soviets and have no scientific base.majority of Eastern European jews are Ashkenazi and they Are Franco-German jews that during middle ages migrated to eastern Europe.
Yiddish (their national language)does not have any turkish or even slavic term.It is a Gemanic language with some Hebric words.

Karaim turks spoke a dialect of kipchak turkish and most of them like other kipchaks have cacausoid features.In Ankara (Old Galathia) and in Izmir (Old Smirna)too there are also many people with Nordic features.I think you must find some link with Celts or Germans in Central Asia also.

About the surnames I am sure you could find many turkish words.I bet you I will find many Persian or Arabic words too.There may be from Bantu language also.It is easy,just pick up a word play with it(this sound change to this sound ) and then say that this word remind me from that word that my grandmother used.



-------------


Posted By: Alparslan
Date Posted: 05-Jan-2005 at 07:53

At first I have to ask a few questions about you after your comments:

 

 

Originally posted by mustafa

Heck, it's even not all that easy for someone from Istanbul to learn the "real" Turkish that was spoken (and is still spoken) in Anatolia before that so calld "language reform" in Turkey. Istanbul Turkish and the "real" Turkey Turkish even have different grammar and words..

Are you Turkish? Are you Muslim?

If so, I am sorry but you are getting misinformation about the subject. Language reform has done in the area of literature and education to eliminate Persian and Arabic influences on Turkish. So that daily used spoken Turkish has started to be used in those areas. In fact by doing so the ordinary people in Anatolia could use easier than before its own language.

Istanbul Turkish and Turkey Turkish do not have different grammar and there is not something like “real Turkish”. This is an artificial thing. In every country there is main accent which is used as basic such as London English or Paris French. This is related with the location’s literature, cultural, demographic and scientific properties.

Originally posted by mustafa

I don't think you have *any* idea what I am talking about. I am not talking about girls from Turkey but Turkic people in general and their origins. Read the posts above carefully and you might figure it out.

Well you are still resisting on despite many sources given to you. If you want an origin you can start from Africa since all scientific research have shown that homo sapiens are originated from Africa. The place that you like to decide, as “this is the origin of this human group” can only be a scientific fact (if it really is) for a limited period of time since people are moving, interacting and even genetically changing during time. 

I am again repeating that the issues on origin, homeland, urheimat or whatever you call of all language groups, or “nations” is a matter of debate in academic circles. It is still a matter of discussion that if Ural-Altai is a single group or not. Korean and Japanese are two new languages, which have been seen similarities with Altaic languages. 

According to Miller, proto-Altai language has roots in West Siberian steppes on the north, Caspian Sea on the west and Altai mountains on the east before 7000 years ego. Proto Altaic people have been moved towards east to Altai region and they split up two as west and east. Western group has formed proto-Turkish. Famous Turkolog Nemeth put the area from the east of Urals till Altais. Menges put it even west.

Originally posted by mustafa

Actually, they probably are very similar. Germanic people have been a very homogeneous society, although recently that might be changing.

You know this change since it you see it, you lived it. But historically speaking it is very dubious that they are “very homogeneous society” since they are mixed with Celts, Latins, Slavs, Uralics and even may be with other Asians such as Turkics.

Originally posted by mustafa

I lived in Germany for most of my life and know Germany's and Europe history very well. Since these people were sedentary they would not leave their villages and settlements pretty much all their lives.

Your life span is beyond our scope when it is talked about thousands of years. Being sedentary doesn’t mean that they did not move anywhere and others did never get in touch with them. Our knowledge about Germans starts with when Romans get into contact with them and put their observations on paper. We do not have enough info about them before. But after this we know that they went from Africa to Crimea and at last to America. So they were moving. We know that they are racially Nordic but they have clear, now and before, non-nordic element inside their society.

Originally posted by mustafa

Plus...with Turks we are talking about mixture between caucasians and asians. In Central Europe it would just be different tribes of caucasians and it would not make such a huge difference on their genotype and phenotype.

I cannot understand your point. What is the difference between the two. Mixing is mixing. They are both homo sapiens at the end. Moreover you cannot assume that being caucasian is an European property since they were coming from Asia. What is the importance if there is not a difference on their gene and phenotype or not? We are talking about a different thing.

It is me who is saying that Turks are a sum of people both Caucasian and Mongoloid. The difference between us is that you are saying that Turks were Mongoloids even in 1683 at the siege of Vienna (how did you get it. It is a mistery though) but suddenly changed to caucasoid until the invention of photograph machine. And I am opposing by saying that Turks has gained caucasoid features during their long journey to Anatolia without denying the fact that they have also mixed with Byzantine Greeks, Armenians, Serbians, native Anatolians. So my objection to you is not related with some nationalistic stance or opinions. Plus we can not even know if the very first Altaic speaking peoples were Mongoloids or not.

My points are:

1)      Chinese chronicles

2)      There are both Caucasoid and Mongoloid skeletons in Altai and other parts of Central Asia. They are all my ancestors. Especially Tocharians. There are lots of common words in Turkish and Tocharian. I do not care about the very very beginning first Altaic speaking people 7 or 6 thousands year ego.

3)      I am looking at western Turks which are Anatolian Turks, Azeris of Azerbaycan, Azeris of Iran, Turks of Caucasia, Crimean Tatars, Baskurts of Russia, Gagauzs of Moldova, Karaim Jews, Turks of Balkans (millions in Bulgaria, Greece, Macedonia etc)…… and some who stayed in Central Asia showing caucasoid features such as Uighurs were all caucasoid. There is a reality on me. I am seeing it. But you are claiming that they were Mongoloids and by mixing with native population they have changed to caucasoid. And they have adopted their languages. Well but we are talking about a huge population. How a group of warriors could achieve to convert all these population and they have started to talk Turkish?

4)      I am looking at Turcoman yoruks in Anatolia assuming that they may be the closest Turks who came to Anatolia at the beginning. They were not Mongoloids moreover there are many blonds. 

5)      I am looking at Alevis in Anatolia assuming that they may be the closest Turks who came to Anatolia at the beginning. Especially Alevi dedes have a long family track showing their roots in Khorasan. They were not Mongoloids but some of them have Turanian features.

6)      Language is a very important aspect in identifying one’s identity. Even if from Iran to Russia and to Anatolia Mongoloid Turks have mixed with locals and changed their languages it means that todays’ Turks are this and they are not the same as 2000 years ego. So what? We are still Turks and we are still carrying something from Mongoloid Turks.

7)      There is social theory of “assimilation of conquerors”. If a group of people who conquered another country by only warriors or without a mass migration they are assimilated inside the main group. Since the language is learnt from mother. A small group of nomad warriors can not convert a huge geography. This is beyond the scope of logic, science and this has never seen during history.  

Originally posted by mustafa

I know some chinese people personally who have pretty light brown hair with an asian face and they are not mixed with caucasians.

How do you know it? I want to remind you that some Turco/Mongol tribes had also ruled China and entered inside of it.

Originally posted by mustafa

If Turks, assuming they were originally asian, which makes total sense by the way, had mixed with Koreans, you would not consider Turks a "mixed population" today. So the comparison with a "mixed" German population is like comparing apples with oranges.

You are seeing Asians as a different race. It must be a result of living in Germany. Indo-Europeans were Asians too…… I am not seeing differences between humans they are both homo sapiens. From that perspective we can say that there is no mixed society.  

Originally posted by mustafa

--All caucasian people and all sedentary people. See above. Plus, the Maurs that conquered half of spain back then are probably, at least to a degree if not fully, genetic descendants of tribes like the Vandals that migrated to North Africa from Northern Europe and probably mixed with the original population.

Oh! No!!!!!!!!  This was terrible. You have educated in Europe I think.

Originally posted by mustafa

Since when are Uighurs part of the Oguz? Since when are Tocharians even Turkic? Since when are Sakas Turkic? Persians? Mongols? I hope you were just enumarating the different peoples that *might* have mixed with the turks instead of implying that the poepl ementioned int he parantheses are Oghuz.

Turks who came to Anatolia and to west was a group of people composing from those people. This is very simple. 

 



Posted By: Chono
Date Posted: 05-Jan-2005 at 08:47
Originally posted by perdon

Originally posted by Chono

These some uzbeks and kirgiz, know nothing, have done nothing, don't possess even elementary skills of politeness, still maintain decades old soviet-fascist attitudes and think that's the very height of being civilized. Trying to deny that their very history has been shaped by mongols. Starting from Uzbek khan and Sheiban down to Tamerlane and Babur all had mongol blood, Tamerlane had slanted eyes, and this uzbek talking like this? Rediculous.

soviet facist attitudes ? God!!! well,aren't you mongolian infulenced by russian?  i have some mongolian friends from outer mongolia ,they speak russian to each other ,not mongolian ,look at your country ,a morden city of mongolia is greatly influnced by russia ! Chono ,you should be an comedian actor in Hollywood!

SORRy ,Chingis han's time is over !!!!you mongolian are able to fight ,very good fighter ,this is true !but you guys don't have the ability to shape a culture or a society ,got it?look at your religion ,you got it from tibeten ,look at your scripture is baseed on uyghur ,see! what you leave in central asia ! nothing!you'd better not talk about civilization !!!!!! it is not fit for neither ancient mongolian or nowdays mongol!

yes,Timarlane has mongol blood!!!!!!!that can explain why he killed so many people in persia! 

I have apologized for what I talked about your people's eyes,but i don't mean to insult you people !! but personly ,I really don't like that kind of eyes,! I am sorry ! 

My silly uzbek perdon,  what you leave in central asia: why do you think kirgiz came to Tian Shan? How did nations like kazakhs and tatars came to be? Why are you people called uzbek anyway? I think we've been shaping enough cultures and societies over there.

And why did you think your mongolian friends were talking in russian to each other? They know you don't understand mongolian. This is called being polite. A quality which you obviously lack, as you've been demonstrating here. Your perception of "civilization" is incredibly soviet-style, which is the 180 degree opposite of it's real meaning.



Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 05-Jan-2005 at 09:58
Originally posted by Mustafa

Originally posted by Oguzoglu

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oghuz_Turks - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oghuz_Turks

Everything is written here...

 

---Hahaha...this is so ignorant it's almost funny. "Everything" is written there.   YOu also seem to not have realized that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that can freely be changed and enhanced by ANYONE! Yes, even you could go there and spread your ignorance, and other people just like you could post a link to your crap to back up their own ignorant arguments. Does that make sense to you?

Let me just clarify for everyone else that I don't think all of Wikipedia is crap, but that it just has no scientific value if it can be changed by anyone out there regardless of his/her qualifications.

Ok. If you really think that this site is only related to the decisions of some european that are trying to show Turks as "Caucasian", it won't dissappoint me since your ideas about the assimilation of all anatolian nations by a group of wariors of a tribe. But to remind you about something is my mission:

Where did the women, children of Oghuz from "Oghuz Steppes"-between Aralsea and Caspian Sea- go??? Did they dissappear after the conquest of modern Turkey and the Mongol invasion??? Absolutely NO... Even in the Ottoman period until the war of Ankara with Timur ( also to remind you- Timur was Turkic and he wasn't totally mongoloid, he looked much Caucasian! ) the REAL OGHUZ migrated from these steppes to Anatolia and most, about %90, of Oghuz population remained in Ottoman terrattorries, mostly Anatolia since the Manzikert war- EVEN BEFORE IT with the huge migrations of Oghuz tribe and other Turkic tribes- Pecheneks,...- to Anatolia.

And do you really believe was Anatolia had a worthy number of "NATIVES"? No man... These lands were not like Wild West, the conquerers killing the "poor" natives. The population of the nations living "around" anatolia can't be even compared to the Turkish migrated... And after the migration a part of them left Anatolia and migrated to middle east and northern caucasia... And you know what? Even for a very non-nationalist Anatolian "native" wouldn't make intermarriage with a mongoloid easily! Also there were some cultural issues. For example the "yörüks" and Alevis didn't accept mixing with these people, and most of the central Anatolia was even without a worthy populatio- except some villages in eastern anatolia...

Also about the origins and migration of nomad Turks... I offer you to read my "linked site" once, and then search more about this topic. Because as everyone knows, the Origins of Turks can only really be seen in ancient chinese writings...

"The original homeland of the Oguz, like other Turks, was the general Ural-Altay region of Central Asia known as Turkistan or Turan, which has been the domain of Turkic peoples since antiquity. Although their mass-migrations from Central Asia occurred from the 9th century onwards, they were present in areas west of the Caspian Sea centuries prior, although smaller in numbers and perhaps living with other Turks. For example, the Book of Dede Korkut which is the historic epic of the Oguz Turks was written in Azerbaijan in the 6th and 7th century.

According to many historians, the usage of the word "Oguz" is dated back to the advent of the Huns (220 BC). The title of "Oguz" (Oguz Khan) was given to Mete, the founder of the Hun empire, which is often considered the first Turkic political entity in Central Asia.

Also in the 2nd century BC, a Turkic tribe called "O-kut" who were described as Huns (referred to as Hsiung-Nu or "colored-eyed people" in Chinese sources) were mentioned in the area of Tarbogatain, in present-day southern Kazakstan. It must be noted that the Greek sources used the name Oufi (or Ouvvi) to describe the Oguz Turks, a name they had also used to describe the Huns centuries earlier."

There is a different problem now. The historians... Do you think they are pure as the spoon exitted from milk?( You know this term better ) NO!

They also have some missions like the people always trying to show Turks as "central asians uncivilisized barbarians"! Yeah, maybe they know some truth about us and dont want to share it! I don't want to get in this topic very much but I only want to inform you about that. Please, please dont read everything the Western historicians write as truth! Because we gave them the chance to write our history according to their will, we made a Huge MISTAKE! - propoganda

Maybe because of your American Westerisized lifestyle, you are unable to see the truth... But the history of mankind is up to the hands of the enemies sons of the people who occupy history. If you really want to know the truth, dont take the son of enemy like a brother, and believe him...



-------------


Posted By: azimuth
Date Posted: 05-Jan-2005 at 10:26
Originally posted by Turk

Originally posted by azimuth

 

well i mentioned that it is not logic

that was how arabs thought long time ago and still think of turks

 

 

corrected.

It's sickening how some people manipulate religion to make other Muslims believe something when they are really just preaching their own culture (I'm referring to the author of that article you read).

your correction was Not fare

That how some people thought of turkish longtime ago  <-- this is better

and Ibn Katheer is a very respected source

he collect informations and usually dont put his own opinions if the subject not worth discussing.

and he mention if the source is weak or not approved or from an isreali source or a Myth...

his work like an Encyclopedia which looks at history from all sides like religion, myth and science..

everything he wrote has a source where he got it from and how accurate that can be. 

and that was 700 years ago

 

 

 



Posted By: Mustafa
Date Posted: 06-Jan-2005 at 00:01

Hi Murph,

Glad you're enjoying the show.   But remember, it always takes at least two to run the program. If people here were not coming up with the most ridiculous arguments to behin with there would be no arguments to rip apart. So, you have to be partly thankful to the people that have been frustrating the heck out of me with their baseless nonsense statements.

You knowing nothing about central asia is probably much better than some people here spreading misinformation and propaganda.

Mustafa

Originally posted by Murph

haha,  mustafa you can really rip people's arguements apart, nice job, its fun to read your stuff...even though i don't really understand since i know nothing about central asia



Posted By: Mustafa
Date Posted: 06-Jan-2005 at 00:06
Originally posted by perdon

 Second, we discussed SEVERAL TIMES above WHY Kazaks, Uigurs etc. have more east asian genes than Turks in Turkey.

where do you get the concultion that uyhgur look like mongolian ,have you ever been there before?have you seen the uyhgur image in this forum!have you seen their eyes ?

Don't put words in my mouth. I said "more asian genes" than Turks in Turkey which is true. I did not say most uygurs look mongolian (although some do).  You and some other people seem to have problems with reading what I wrote here. I am totally wasting my time repeating what I said before so people like you don't put words in my mouth I never said.

I don't even know why I am talking to someone as racist and narrow minded as you are....



Posted By: Alparslan
Date Posted: 06-Jan-2005 at 01:17


Posted By: Alparslan
Date Posted: 06-Jan-2005 at 01:22

Originally posted by Mustafa

You knowing nothing about central asia is probably much better than some people here spreading misinformation and propaganda.

Comparing to your huge knowledge on the issue we are ignorant of course. You are the authority and best Turkish intellectual living abroad in USA which is also the symbol of literacy, "freedom" and peace on the world. 

If they are treating you as second class human being this not our nor your mistake. If you think that by denying your identity you will become a "loved one" you are seriously wrong. History is not a tool to treat your psychological problems that you get in Germany and USA.

Adamlarin kicindan ayrilmazsan yuzune bok gelince aglama, baskasini da suclama. 

Originally posted by Mustafa

I don't even know why I am talking to someone as racist and narrow minded as you are....

This is a very good idea. Do not vaste your time here. Ikile......

You are saying racist to us. A man whose name Mustafa from Kayseri Central Anatolia, raised in Germany, now lives in USA is accusing us being racist. He is the one who tries to "sell" us the racist Hitler Aryan teories are accusing us by being racist.

You are a dolphine living in a pool Mustafa.  



Posted By: azimuth
Date Posted: 06-Jan-2005 at 01:37
Originally posted by Alparslan

You are saying racist to us. A man whose name Mustafa from Kayseri Central Anatolia, raised in Germany, now lives in USA is accusing us being racist. He is the one who tries to "sell" us the racist Hitler Aryan teories are accusing us by being racist.

You are a dolphine living in a pool Mustafa.  

whats wrong with the name Mustafa?

 



Posted By: Mustafa
Date Posted: 06-Jan-2005 at 02:22

And here we go again. The eternal battle against illogical thinking, propaganda, racism and just plain ignorance. But someone has to do it I guess...might as well be me (although I would appreciate some help here ).....

Originally posted by Alparslan

At first I have to ask a few questions about you after your comments:

 

Are you Turkish? Are you Muslim?

 

--If you had actually READ what I wrote before in this thread you would actually know the answer to these questions. But since you have chosen to stay ignorant, you will just have to go back and read some of the earlier posts in this thread. Plus, I fail to see how being a Turk or Muslim *automatically* gives you all this knowledge about the topics we are talking about here.

 

If so, I am sorry but you are getting misinformation about the subject. Language reform has done in the area of literature and education to eliminate Persian and Arabic influences on Turkish.

 

--Oh really? Is that why the official Turkish spoken today could *still* not stand on its own feet without persian and arabic? Heck....the word for "yes" in standard Turkish ("Evet") is even a fully arabic word with has nothing to do with Turkic languages where "yes" is universally "he" or "ha"...even among non-standard dialects in Turkey itself. You're falling for propaganda here.

 

So that daily used spoken Turkish has started to be used in those areas.

 

--What a bunch of nonsense. "Daily spoken Turkish" among most turks was/is still various "Anadolu" dialects and NOT the Istanbul dialect that was chosen to be the standard language. Anadolu Turkish is VASTLY different from the standard Turkish. That is why someone like you will have HUGE trouble even properly understanding someone from a village in Kayseri or Malatya or other places where they still speak an Anadolu Oguz dialect.

 

In fact by doing so the ordinary people in Anatolia could use easier than before its own language.

 

--Again...more nonsense. The "ordinary" people in Turkey did not have any easier time understanding the Istanbul dialect, complete with different vocabulary and grammar, which was forced on them. I see the need for a common language in a country like Turkey where there are/were SO many different Oguz dialects all in one place. But, the policy of Turkish snobbish Turkish society and media has been to ridicule and belittle everyone who speaks/spoke an Anadolu dialect by saying: "Look, they can't even speak Turkish properly."  It would have been cleverer to just recognize that there are many different dialects in Turkey (some of which are NOT even Oguz dialects) and still have a common language without belittling every other dialect besides the standard Istanbul dialect.

 

Apparently, you are part of this snobbish, ignorant mass of people who does not recognize that Turkey does have different dialects which are not all that easily understood by people who are not used to them due to different grammar and vocabulary. Unfortunately, due to people like you and a targeted media campaign, those dialects are dying out because the poor people who speak them feel ashamed about speaking them. My poor mother, who is from Kayseri (just like me) feels ashamed abour her OWN Kayseri dialect when she goes to Istanbul to visit relatives!!! I have to tell her that it's actually ok that she speaks her language and there is nothing to be ashamed about. Our Kayseri dialect (along with other Anadolu dialects) has more in common both in vocabulary and grammar with most other Turkic languages than the "standard" Istanbul dialect could ever have! So, how do you feel about Turkish society making people ashamed about speaking their own language which is hundreds of years old?

Istanbul Turkish and Turkey Turkish do not have different grammar

 

--Man...your ignorance is amazing. But unfortunately you are not alone. There are others like you from Turkey in this forum who display an amazing amount of resilience when it comes to making themselves ridiculous and displaying their ignorance. Although I have said this in this thread before, I know that you have huge trouble actually reading anything written in this thread before opening your mouth and spewing nonsense here, so I will repeat it here again one last time. I'll just cut and paste something I wrote to "Turk" here in this thread who also claimed that there is no different grammar between standard Turkish and Anadolu dialects:

 

Apperantly you have no clue about Anadolu Turkish to claim that. Or maybe you just think the different grammar is just "wrong" Turkish spoken by "naive" and ignorant peasants who don't even know how to speak "Turkish" properly, right? Let me give you a little lesson in *one* version of Anadolu Turkish (the Kayseri version...but quite common elsewhere too):

"Ben gidiyom" "Sen gidiyong" "o gidiyo" "biz gidiyok" "siz gidiyonguz" "onnar gidiyo(llar)"

Question: "Siz onnarnang gidiyonguzmu?" etc...etc...etc. (Standard Turkish: Siz onlar ile gidiyormusunuz?)

Suggestion: "Hading, carsiya gidek!" (Standard Turkish: "Hadi bakalim, carsiya gidelim."

Also: There is no such thing as "evet or hayir" to express "yes" and "No" in Anadolu Turkish. We just use the more or less standard Turkic words "He"  and "Yok." I have no idea anyway where "evet" and "hayir" came from...no other Turkic people use those words including (originally) most of Turkey outside Istanbul.

There are many other examples I could give. Are you saying this is just "badly spoken" standard Turkey Turkish? If this is not different grammar from standard Turkey Turkish, then what is it? Oh...I see...it's the language of the "cahil" and uneducated who just don't know any better (the typical comment speakers of this dialect get in Turkey). Funny that I am both educated *and* know better (better than you anyway...haha) and still prefer to speak that language.

 

Anybody who knows *anything* about the grammar of Turkic languages will tell you that there are two different grammatical structures displayed above. But since you are ignorant and have no idea about the dialects spoken in Turkey you would now know these things. I pity you.

 

In every country there is main accent which is used as basic such as London English or Paris French. This is related with the location’s literature, cultural, demographic and scientific properties.

 

--It's not just accents. You have to come back to reality. If you go to Liverpool in England and speak to a native you won't understand a thing they are saying. It's a different dialect of english. Same applies to Germans from Hamburg going to southern Bavaria and speaking to locals who still speak the old Bavarian language there. They don't understand a thing. And, of course, same applies to you if you go to a village in central or eastern anatolia and actually manage to find someone who is not ashamed about speaking their own dialect. If they do speak it you will also sit there and wonder what these people are talking about (just like you are wondering what I am talking about right now since you are not getting a single thing I am saying).

Well you are still resisting on despite many sources given to you.

 

---Hahaha...yeah..."sources" like Wikipedia and people like you? I think I will pass on those "sources".   Maybe one day, once you have actually learned how think logically, you will realize how ignorant you sound, but that day may just never come.

 

If you want an origin you can start from Africa since all scientific research have shown that homo sapiens are originated from Africa

 

--Wrong again. There are competing theories out there called "out of Africa" and "multiple regional development" theories. I happen to have written a thesis on this stuff. But that's besides the point. I thought this is a "Steppes of Central Asia" forum and not and African one. Again, you're making no sense.

 

The place that you like to decide, as “this is the origin of this human group” can only be a scientific fact (if it really is) for a limited period of time since people are moving, interacting and even genetically changing during time.

 

--I don't decide anything. I take scientific discoveries (real one as opposed to your anecdotal ones influences by wishful thinking, racism and propaganda) analyze them and draw conclusions from them just like any logically thinking person should do. I don't just repeat regurgitated nonsense like you and others like you are doing and declare that crap as "fact."  To find the origin of a culture you have to go back to its roots. Have you read the genetic research done on the Huns that shows that the first wave (which did not mix with europeans) was gentically east asian and had NO caucasian genes? Again....do me and yourself a favor and read this thread thoroughly before posting more crap. I have explained everything here several times before to almost equally hardheaded and ignorant people like you, so I don't want to waste my time repeating everything again just because you are too lazy or inept to read all the relevant material already posted in this thread.

According to Miller, proto-Altai language has roots in West Siberian steppes on the north, Caspian Sea on the west and Altai mountains on the east before 7000 years ego. Proto Altaic people have been moved towards east to Altai region and they split up two as west and east. Western group has formed proto-Turkish. Famous Turkolog Nemeth put the area from the east of Urals till Altais. Menges put it even west.

 

--Oooh...7000 years ago huh? People have trouble following the Turkic and Mongol people further back than the time of the Huns and you go to 7000 years? That's really reliable research (or should I say speculation).  Also, it would help if you quoted the scientific journals or publications where you found this "information" instead of just throwing around with names like Miller and Nemeth. You have obviously never written a scientific paper nor read one.

You know this change since it you see it, you lived it. But historically speaking it is very dubious that they are “very homogeneous society” since they are mixed with Celts, Latins, Slavs, Uralics and even may be with other Asians such as Turkics.

 

--Did you pull this out of you ass again? Where is the genetic analysis that shows that especially "uralics" and asians got mixed into the German population during historic and prehistoric times when the germans were not even moving further than 30km away from their villages during their whole lives? Are you even listening to a SINGLE word I am writing here? I might as well speak to a wall....

Your life span is beyond our scope when it is talked about thousands of years. Being sedentary doesn’t mean that they did not move anywhere and others did never get in touch with them.

 

--I am not talking about my lifespan. You're the one imagining I am since you don't seem to get things easily by nature. I am talking about historical timespans. And yes, the common peasant folk (which was the majority of the population) did not move anywhere. It was merchants and sodiers that were moving around...that's all. That's what "sedentary" means...you don't move. You plough your land and you're born and die on the same land. It's been like that most of human history with sedentary people until the advent of modern transportation.

 

Our knowledge about Germans starts with when Romans get into contact with them and put their observations on paper.

 

I would not say "our" knowledge since your knowledge is so limited that it would be an insult to the word "knowledge" to call whatever ignorance and misinformation you are spreading "knowledge."

 

We do not have enough info about them before. But after this we know that they went from Africa to Crimea and at last to America. So they were moving.

 

--What? Hahaha...oh my god this must be so embarrassing for you (that is, if you actually knew how stupid all this sounds...but ignorance is bliss I guess). Germans went from Africa to the Crim peninsula and then all the way to America? Wow.....when did they arrive in Germany, Mr. Ignorance?   If you have not noticed, we're not talking about some odd settlers here and about time WAY before there was any "America" in the minds of the Europeans.

 

We know that they are racially Nordic but they have clear, now and before, non-nordic element inside their society.

 

--I see...I am still waiting for your quotations from scientific research done on this and your logical conclusions drawn therefrom. Otherwise, you might as well pull all of this "information" out of your ass.  

I cannot understand your point.

--Hahaha...I know. Why does that not surprise me at all?

 Mixing is mixing.

--Let me explain this to you in baby speak: you mix two DIFFERENT things not the two of the SAME. Get it? So...caucasian mixing with caucasian = caucasian. Caucasian mixing with Asian = mixed person with features of both races. If you don't understand this then I don't know what else to say to you. Then you must just be really dense in addition to being ignorant.

They are both homo sapiens at the end. Moreover you cannot assume that being caucasian is an European property since they were coming from Asia. What is the importance if there is not a difference on their gene and phenotype or not? We are talking about a different thing.

--Can you put this into English please? Or any coherent language for that matter? You're not making any sense (as if that's unusual).

It is me who is saying that Turks are a sum of people both Caucasian and Mongoloid.

--Good for you!   You must be a national hero or some genius or something.

 you are saying that Turks were Mongoloids even in 1683 at the siege of Vienna (how did you get it. It is a mistery though) but suddenly changed to caucasoid until the invention of photograph machine.

--You love putting words in my mouth don't you? I said that they looked asian...who knows if they were fully asian or mixed asian. If you were actually a cultured person you would look at European drawings from the times of the sieges of Vienna and you would disvover that the most of the Turkish solders have asian features on them. I did not go back in time and tell the inhabitants in Vienna to draw asian faces.

And I am opposing by saying that Turks has gained caucasoid features during their long journey to Anatolia without denying the fact that they have also mixed with Byzantine Greeks, Armenians, Serbians, native Anatolians.
.

--What are you opposing? You are repeating exactly what I have already said before. If you had actually read AND understood anything writtein in this thread you would know this already. The question here is about the ancestors of the Turks. If turks are altaic people and not, as you might wish, "altacized" caucasians (which is a bunch of crap) then they were at some point genetically the same as all the other altaic people. Since all the other altaic people are ALL asian it would only make sense that the Turks originally were asian too. This is just logical reasoning. But we don't have to leave it just at logical reasoning. There is plenty of historical evidence that the early turkic people were asian. I won't repeat it here but i suggest that you finally actually read this thread before opening up your mouth again and spewing utter ignorance and nonsense.

Plus we can not even know if the very first Altaic speaking peoples were Mongoloids or not.

--yes we can to reasonable certainty (nothing is 100%...things are either more likely or less likely) if we use logical reasoning and historical accounts in combination, something that you still have to learn how to do.

      There are both Caucasoid and Mongoloid skeletons in Altai and other parts of Central Asia. They are all my ancestors.

--Hahaha....more ignorance. This is sickeningly funny actually. You're like a one man comedy show. So, you traced your ancestry back to 3000 year old (most likely celtic clothes wearing) mummies? Did you find a secret family tree in the attic of your grandfather which showed the mummies all the way at the bottom as the origin of your family?   There is absolutely NO evidence that these mummies had anything to do with altaic people whatsoever although someone like you would ignorantly construe it that way. In fact, there is plenty of evidence that these caucasians were gentically assimilated into the asian population and disappeared leaving NO traces behind. That aread of the world has always been asian genetically back to more than 200,000 years which can be seen in the features of modern Homo sapiens which were found in that region which ALREADY BACK THEN had fully asian features. If you were actually an informed person you would know these things, but since you are not you just regurgitate propaganda and hearsay. The thoughts of a simple brain.....

 

Especially Tocharians. There are lots of common words in Turkish and Tocharian. I do not care about the very very beginning first Altaic speaking people 7 or 6 thousands year ego.

The tocharians again...god I am sick of this. The poor tocharians are always used by white supremicists and wannabe caucasians like you to demonstrate the "might" and "influence" of the "white race" in even in asia of old times. This has nothing to do with the current discussion so drop it. We're talking about the origins of the altaic people, not people who got assimilated on the way later on in history like the tocharians. Get it?

     I am looking at western Turks which are Anatolian Turks, Azeris of Azerbaycan, Azeris of Iran, Turks of Caucasia, Crimean Tatars, Baskurts of Russia, Gagauzs of Moldova, Karaim Jews, Turks of Balkans (millions in Bulgaria, Greece, Macedonia etc)…… and some who stayed in Central Asia showing caucasoid features such as Uighurs were all caucasoid.

--See? This is what I mean by a "simple brain" like yours. You can only see on the surface and can't go any further. Since you see that all these people mentioned above look Caucasian you conclude that the original turks from mongolia and altai mountain also MUST have looked caucasian. This is the stupides and most ignorant crap I have ever heard. I don't even know why I am wasting my time with someone like you. You totally lack any logic and have done absolutely NO research but stubbornly argue the wildest points here. OF COURSE these people look caucasian today because they are mostly TURKICIZED native populations that have been living there for millenia. Do you think millions of Turkic settlers in horse waggons (like in the wild west of America) came to western asia and Turkey to settle the land and kill the natives? No...turks conquered the population became turkicized with some mixing along the way. I hope this makes sense EVEN to you.

There is a reality on me.

YOUR reality is unfortunately different from THE reality. Your reality takes place in dreamland where a simple mind like yours feels warm and cozy and secure and all its wishful thinking becomes reality.

 

I am seeing it.

You would not even see the light if I held it in front of your nose and said: "look, it's light".

 But you are claiming that they were Mongoloids and by mixing with native population they have changed to caucasoid. And they have adopted their languages. Well but we are talking about a huge population. How a group of warriors could achieve to convert all these population and they have started to talk Turkish?

I did not make this up. It's the result of scientific research. There are huge turkicized populations out there today. Again, there weren't millions of Turks to begin with to be able to settle the huge areas they conquered. Their homeland, the steppes, was only able to support small numbers of nomads. This process of "converting" the local population was very common throughout history, not just among nomads (but someone like you would not know that). Whenever a population changed rulers the population adopted the language AND religion of the new ruler. It's been like that for millenia.

   I am looking at Turcoman yoruks in Anatolia assuming that they may be the closest Turks who came to Anatolia at the beginning. They were not Mongoloids moreover there are many blonds.

--Wrong again. There is substantial debate about the origins of the Yoruks and if they were originally turkic at all or if they were turkicized. Of course your simple mind thinks that blonde people came from central asia to Turkey although it is much more likely that some crusaders raped some locals on the way to the holy land. But again, that might be going to deep for a simple mind.  

   I am looking at Alevis in Anatolia assuming that they may be the closest Turks who came to Anatolia at the beginning. Especially Alevi dedes have a long family track showing their roots in Khorasan. They were not Mongoloids but some of them have Turanian features.

Where are getting these utterly dumb assumptions from? Alevis did not come from central asia you ignorant person! They are a middle easter and anatolian phenomenon. You might want to read up on this in real sources instead of hearing it from neighbors and story tellers. What the hell are "Turanian Features"? There is no such thing except in your imagination and other racist turks like you. Your assumptions are not based on logic or scientific research so it's all just pulled out of your behind and useless (in addition to being plain nonsense).

   Language is a very important aspect in identifying one’s identity. Even if from Iran to Russia and to Anatolia Mongoloid Turks have mixed with locals and changed their languages it means that todays’ Turks are this and they are not the same as 2000 years ego. So what? We are still Turks and we are still carrying something from Mongoloid Turks.
 

Since you make it a habit to miss the point completely it does not surprise me that you missed it again. I never said that people in Turkey are not turks. Turks are part of a cultural phenomenon nowadays and not part of a race. Get this into your head. The discussion was about the origins of the turks (as I have said a million times before and you still don't get it.)

   There is social theory of “assimilation of conquerors”.

--Which you just pulled out of your ass again. This "assimilation of conquerors" as you call it only works in societies where the native culture is utterly superior and the population so large as to not be killed off or forced into submission as in China, which is the best example for that. The situation in central asia and Turkey was different...but again you would now know that.

 

Since the language is learnt from mother.

--another baseless assumption. You really ARE a one man comedy show. You should have starred in the movie "Dumb And Dumber" as the third main character.

 

A small group of nomad warriors can not convert a huge geography.

--Of course they can. Look at all the Turkic countries now. That's exactly what happened. Again, don't think millions of horse waggons moved to central asia, turkey, southern russia , crimea and the balkans from the altai mountains, mongolia and siberia.

 

This is beyond the scope of logic, science and this has never seen during history.

Please don't insult logic, science and history by taking those words into your mouth.   

You are seeing Asians as a different race. It must be a result of living in Germany.

--Yes it must me....hahaha. What a wonderful example of "logical reasoning" hahaha...oh my god I am going to crack up. This guy is a born comedian! Of course it's not the fact that asians ARE actually a different race...no, no no....i must be thinking such "nonsense" because I was living in Germany at some point....hahaha. Have you thought about doing this show on TV? It's hilarious!

Indo-Europeans were Asians too

---hahahaha...oh my god! This is getting better and better! How much more crap can come out of this guy's mouth?

…… I am not seeing differences between humans they are both homo sapiens.

--Yes. "both humans" are homo sapiens...hahaha. I did not know that there were only two humans on this planet. If I don't show this post to someone immediately they won't believe me how much hilarious crap I am dealing with here. By the way, recognizing that there are and have been different races on this planet does not equel racism. What you have been claiming (caucasians coming to Turkey from central asia) is part of "white supremacist" thinking which is utterly racist, even if you don't recognize it. My recognition of the existance of races is just plain fact.

 From that perspective we can say that there is no mixed society.  

Oh! No!!!!!!!!  This was terrible. You have educated in Europe I think.

--You think? hahaha...that was really hard work to figure out since I have already said that I lived there for most of my life before in this thread. Now get this...I was educated BOTH in Europe AND in the USA! Wow...now that makes me totally ignorant right? I was educated by the "enemy" who indoctrinated me with false idea....hahaha. Some of you guys in Turkey are really out of your minds....it's disgusting. I don't take any propaganda as "fact" be it European, American OR Turkish Propaganda. I have developed a common sense and logical thinking over the years which makes it possible for me to recognize all senseless propganda.. Something that you are utterly lacking. Did YOU have any education at all? Even in Turkey? Or did you learn how to read and write from the back of a cookie box? Chewing gum paper?

Man...I just wated a couple of hours of my time answering to this utter nonsense. I don't think I can do this anymore. I think it is self-evident that this guy lacks any real knowledge about ANYTHING really and just repeats all kinds of hearsay like a bored parrot. Unfortunately, this place is full of people like him and it's really hard to find people that actually THINK instead of using their heads as dead paper weights.

Mustafa



Posted By: Mustafa
Date Posted: 06-Jan-2005 at 02:40

Originally posted by Chono

why do you think kirgiz came to Tian Shan? How did nations like kazakhs and tatars came to be? Why are you people called uzbek anyway? I think we've been shaping enough cultures and societies over there.

--Dear Chono, while I don't agree with Perdon and think he's a stinking racist, I just wanted to clarify that Mongolians and Mongolian culture has been shaped *at least as much* by Turkic culture (if not more) as Turkic culture has been shaped by mongolians. Let's not forget that pretty much ALL mongolians outside Mongolia were eventually Turkicized and integrated into Turkic societies.

Mustafa



Posted By: Mustafa
Date Posted: 06-Jan-2005 at 02:48
Originally posted by Oguzoglu

[

Maybe because of your American Westerisized lifestyle, you are unable to see the truth... But the history of mankind is up to the hands of the enemies sons of the people who occupy history. If you really want to know the truth, dont take the son of enemy like a brother, and believe him...

--I am not influence by *any* lifestyle. I have broken away from the restraints of national thinking long time ago and I am glad I did. I suggest you do the same. As I have said before, I don't fall for any Propaganda, be it American, European or Turkish. I draw my own conclusions after examining the facts.

This whole attitude of considering entire nations as the "enemy" has taken us into this deep crap in the first place. You speak almost like George Bush believe it or not, who is one of the stupidest presidents the US has ever seen: "We're going to find the ENEMY, smoke 'em out of their holes, and kill 'em!"  This is the kind of propaganda talk that creates problems and you are contributing to it.

Mustafa



Posted By: coolstorm
Date Posted: 05-Feb-2005 at 02:14

for some reasons, everything eventually turns into some sorta argument that has nothing to do with the original topic.

anyway, my driver is a urghur or something like that i can't even spell it right. and he does look a little different from us but who cares.



-------------
���DZj�~�� ��������
�� �� �C �q �D �� �� �� �� �T �� �� �g �A �� �� �� �� �� �U �N �� �� ï


Posted By: Alparslan
Date Posted: 05-Feb-2005 at 02:46
Originally posted by coolstorm

for some reasons, everything eventually turns into some sorta argument that has nothing to do with the original topic.

Yes unfortunately you are right. But claiming that Andulus Islam civilization in Spain has been built by the ancestors of Vandals as Mustafa claimed deserved something. He got racist view that he is not even aware of it. "Someone" has injected him "the basic information" that "only the westerners, westerners ancestors or westerners' related peoples can built civilizations".

And one more important point is that it is a high probability that he is not Muslim but ethnically Turk. If we translate it he may be "rised by missionaires". There is a huge difference between "being a Christian" and "Christian rised by missionaires". The difference is as huge as between human being and a creature.



Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 05-Feb-2005 at 08:58

How futile is this point about historical identity compared to modern identity?

What evidence regarding central asian Turkish genes are actually being presented? What blood types? What physical markers? Show us the research!

Linquistically, ethnically, cultural, religious, and genetics are only a few methods to catagorize one's background. To say that we are to identify with accuracy one's historical identity we will need to grasp the immense variables that play into such an equation.



Posted By: Mustafa
Date Posted: 05-Feb-2005 at 13:00
Originally posted by Alparslan

Yes unfortunately you are right. But claiming that Andulus Islam civilization in Spain has been built by the ancestors of Vandals as Mustafa claimed deserved something. He got racist view that he is not even aware of it. "Someone" has injected him "the basic information" that "only the westerners, westerners ancestors or westerners' related peoples can built civilizations".

And one more important point is that it is a high probability that he is not Muslim but ethnically Turk. If we translate it he may be "rised by missionaires". There is a huge difference between "being a Christian" and "Christian rised by missionaires". The difference is as huge as between human being and a creature.

Does *anything* intelligent ever come out of this guy's mouth? Please, someone tell me this guy is not representing the viewpoints of the majority of the people of Turkey today...please!



Posted By: Alparslan
Date Posted: 05-Feb-2005 at 13:52

I am asking you a very simple question Mustafa............

Are you a Christian Turk or not? That is all................



Posted By: Mustafa
Date Posted: 05-Feb-2005 at 18:02
Originally posted by Alparslan

I am asking you a very simple question Mustafa............

Are you a Christian Turk or not? That is all................

I'm not a christian Turk you simpleton. Are you pulling these ideas out of your ass? Just because I don't agree with you I don't have to be Christian. As if all the muslims in the world would agree with your crazy ideas. This is not about being christian or muslim, this is about educated and not-educated or just simply intelligent or DUMB.  I will be the first one to say that your posts show that you are neither educated nor intelligent. Otherwise you would not ask stupid questions such as asking a guy with the name MUSTAFA if he is Christian.

Let me also be the first one to tell you that pretty much everyone who converts to Christianity chooses a Christian name, just like people converting to Islam choose a muslim name. Of course you would never think that far.  Time to turn your brain on.....it can do more than just fill up your skull.

By the way...what's wrong with being Christian? If you're Christian you're automatically wrong and an "enemy."? Is that what you are saying? I am sure the Christian members of this forum appreciate that a lot....It's funny how someone like you, who has no clue about anything loves to generalize about everyone else in the world.  Do you have any friends that are not Turks to be able to intelligently speak about other nationalities? I'm talking about real friends, not just people that were temporarily unfortunate enough to have to endure your broken English and illogical "arguments"....



Posted By: cattus
Date Posted: 05-Feb-2005 at 18:35
Mustafa, enough with the criticisms and just stick to material please.

-------------


Posted By: Hrodger
Date Posted: 05-Feb-2005 at 20:22

This discussion has been so much racists so I don't know if I dear to
make a comment...


Is it possible that "turkic" in old manyucript rather refers to the Uralic
culture, who I remiscent is somewhat similar to (East) Mongolian culture?


Tthere is a non-accepted theory that "Turk" (at least in
Scandinavian and Germanic sources from Viking Age) refers to Finno-
Ugric groups and individuals. For example, the voyage of Erik the Red-
head exploration of Vinland (North America) mentions how a tysktyrk
("German-Türk"), is in service. This is by most historian considered to
refer to Turkic ethno, but by the non-accepted branch to a male of
Finno-Ugric descent. Adam of Bremen also mentions "Turks" (Turci)...



Posted By: Mustafa
Date Posted: 05-Feb-2005 at 22:49

Originally posted by Catt

Mustafa, enough with the criticisms and just stick to material please.

I'd love to. But why don't you tell this to someone like "Alparslan" who has been spewing racism here for months?



Posted By: cattus
Date Posted: 06-Feb-2005 at 00:22
you seem more than capable of countering things said here, just no need to sink down insulting someones intelligence and continually refer to their stupidity in every post.
Thats all, please continue.

-------------


Posted By: Alparslan
Date Posted: 06-Feb-2005 at 03:47
Originally posted by Hrodger

Tthere is a non-accepted theory that "Turk" (at least in
Scandinavian and Germanic sources from Viking Age) refers to Finno-
Ugric groups and individuals. For example, the voyage of Erik the Red-
head exploration of Vinland (North America) mentions how a tysktyrk
("German-Türk"), is in service. This is by most historian considered to
refer to Turkic ethno............

What is this? Would you please explain more about it......... Were they related with Huns or a mixture of Hun-German?

It seems like you may be interested and may give alternative opinions about a Turkish researcher named Turgay Kurum on some old runic texts in Scandinavia. He claims that These texts can be read by using Turkish runic letters of Central Asia. And he shows how he read the text. This is the link.

  http://www.antalyaonline.net/futhark/ - http://www.antalyaonline.net/futhark/

Originally posted by Alparslan

And one more important point is that it is a high probability that he is not Muslim but ethnically Turk. If we translate it he may be "rised by missionaires". There is a huge difference between "being a Christian" and "Christian rised by missionaires". The difference is as huge as between human being and a creature.............

I had written like this. I did not make any offence to Christian and Christianity. I had never done it and will do it.

But I do not like missionaires. I see them as opportunist soul vultures when there is a disaster in a country. We saw them in time of earthquake of Turkey 5 years ego and now they are in the tsunami zone. That is why I do not like people who are converted to Christianity by them. 

 

 



Posted By: Turk
Date Posted: 06-Feb-2005 at 15:54
We are not Asian or European....

We are black.

End of discussion.


-------------


Posted By: Hrodger
Date Posted: 06-Feb-2005 at 19:19
Originally posted by Alparslan

Originally posted by Hrodger


Tthere is a non-accepted theory that "Turk" (at least in Scandinavian
and Germanic sources from Viking Age) refers to Finno- Ugric groups and
individuals. For example, the voyage of Erik the Red- head exploration of
Vinland (North America) mentions how a tysktyrk ("German-Türk"), is in
service. This is by most historian considered to refer to Turkic
ethno............


What is this? Would you please explain more about it......... Were they
related with Huns or a mixture of Hun-German?



Hmm... I cannot recall where I read this thing, but search for
"Tyrker the southern man" in The Flatey Book,
http://www.northvegr.org/lore/flatey/001.php - http://www.northvegr.org/lore/flatey/001.php .
Originally posted by Alparslan

It seems like you may be interested and may give
alternative opinions about a Turkish researcher named Turgay Kurum on
some old runic texts in Scandinavia. He claims that These texts can be
read by using Turkish runic letters of Central Asia. And he shows how he
read the text. This is the link.


  http://www.antalyaonline.net/futhark/ - http://www.antalyaonline.net/futhark/



I've heard this proposing on the Internet, but I have never seen any formal
research paper arguing that Old Futhark (0-500AD) is rather derived from
Orkhon. But it is intresting. I know that theese stones have a very
doubtful interpretation in Old Futhark. The image on the Möjbro stone of
a horse rider is sometimes considered to be much younger than the
inscriptions. After he has dechiffered the stones, he interprets them like
more modern stones (700-1100AD) which usually contains a similar
message, but they usually contain personal names too, which his
interpretaion does not. I hope that more finds will be discovered in
future...I think the material are to scarce to draw any reasonable
conclusion. Note that I'm not an expert on runes.

Note: something he hasn't transcript is the "Golden horns of Gallehus",
which is also in Old Futhark.



Print Page | Close Window

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz - http://www.webwizguide.com